Laing O’rourke Delivery Limited v Sweett (UK) Limited

Laing O’rourke Delivery Limited v Sweett (UK) Limited

The pleadings, as amended, are sufficiently clear, particularised, and disclose a reasonable cause of action against Sweett (UK) Limited. The case is not unreasonably vague or incoherent, and the amendments clarify the issues for trial. There is a real prospect of success on the pleaded case, and the matter should proceed to trial. The applications to strike out are refused, and the amendments are allowed.

Parties
Claimant: Laing O’Rourke Delivery Limited; Defendant: Sweett (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction/contract) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Amendment)
Outcome
Strike out application refused; amendment application allowed.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Amendment of Pleadings, Duties of Independent Tester, Interpretation of Construction Contracts, Professional Negligence in Construction
Construction Law Contract Law Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Amendment of Pleadings Duties of Independent Tester Interpretation of Construction Contracts +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laing O’Rourke Delivery Limited

Claimant

Sweett (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction/contract) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Amendment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleadings against Sweett (UK) Limited disclose a reasonable cause of action and are sufficiently particularised to proceed to trial
  2. 2 Whether the amendments to the Particulars of Claim should be allowed
  3. 3 Whether parts of the claim (including those relating to fire safety defects, roofs, en suite doors, and vanity units) should be struck out for being vague, incoherent, or not disclosing a legally recognisable claim

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings, as amended, are sufficiently clear, particularised, and disclose a reasonable cause of action against Sweett (UK) Limited. The case is not unreasonably vague or incoherent, and the amendments clarify the issues for trial. There is a real prospect of success on the pleaded case, and the matter should proceed to trial. The applications to strike out are refused, and the amendments are allowed.

Court Disposition

Strike out application refused; amendment application allowed.

Orders

  • The application by Sweett (UK) Limited to strike out parts of the Particulars of Claim is dismissed.
  • Laing O’Rourke Delivery Limited is granted permission to amend the Particulars of Claim and related documents as per the latest drafts.