ACD (Landscape Architects) Ltd v Overall & Anor

ACD (Landscape Architects) Ltd v Overall & Anor

The Court held that while the Defendants' allegations of professional negligence would ultimately require expert evidence to proceed, the absence of such evidence at the pleading stage did not automatically justify strike-out, except where a party makes clear it will not obtain such evidence. The enhanced damages claim for over £5 million was struck out as irrecoverable, being outside the scope of the professional retainer. The Claimant was awarded costs in the case for the strike-out application, but the application was not the most cost-effective approach and would not have succeeded in full.

Parties
Claimant: ACD (Landscape Architects) Limited; Defendant: Robert Overall; Defendant: Cookham Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence / Ruling on Strike Out Application and Related Amendments/costs
Outcome
Strike-out application partially successful; enhanced damages claim struck out; costs of strike-out application to be Claimant's costs in the case.
Legal Topics
Requirement for Expert Evidence in Professional Negligence, Scope of Professional Retainer, Recoverability of Damages, Strike Out Applications, Costs Orders
Professional Negligence Contract Law Civil Procedure Requirement for Expert Evidence in Professional Negligence Scope of Professional Retainer Recoverability of Damages Strike Out Applications Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ACD (Landscape Architects) Limited

Claimant

Robert Overall

Defendant

Cookham Construction Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence / Ruling on Strike Out Application and Related Amendments/costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether allegations of professional negligence in pleadings require supporting expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether the scope of the professional retainer limits recoverable damages
  3. 3 Whether the enhanced damages claim is recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that while the Defendants' allegations of professional negligence would ultimately require expert evidence to proceed, the absence of such evidence at the pleading stage did not automatically justify strike-out, except where a party makes clear it will not obtain such evidence. The enhanced damages claim for over £5 million was struck out as irrecoverable, being outside the scope of the professional retainer. The Claimant was awarded costs in the case for the strike-out application, but the application was not the most cost-effective approach and would not have succeeded in full.

Court Disposition

Strike-out application partially successful; enhanced damages claim struck out; costs of strike-out application to be Claimant's costs in the case.

Orders

  • Enhanced damages claim for over £5 million struck out as irrecoverable.
  • Claimant awarded costs of and occasioned by the strike-out application, to be costs in the case, excluding costs of substantive witness statements.