National House-Building Council v Vascroft Contractors Ltd [2022] EWHC 1881 (TCC) (19 July 2022)

National House-Building Council v Vascroft Contractors Ltd [2022] EWHC 1881 (TCC) (19 July 2022)

The court held that certain paragraphs of the Defence disclosed no real prospect of success and should be struck out, particularly those challenging the start date of insurance cover and related to the validity of the Buildmark Cover start date. However, the court found that Vascroft's defences on estoppel, notification of defects, access for remedial works, and reasonableness of the settlement were arguable and should proceed to trial. Vascroft was given leave to amend its pleading on estoppel.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1881 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: National House-Building Council; Defendant: Vascroft Contractors Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Parts of Defence And/or for Summary Judgment / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Application granted in part, refused in part
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Estoppel, Insurance Indemnity, Notification of Defects, Reasonableness of Settlement, Property Registration, Access for Remedial Works
Insurance Law Construction Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Estoppel Insurance Indemnity Notification of Defects +3 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National House-Building Council

Claimant

Vascroft Contractors Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out Parts of Defence And/or for Summary Judgment / Interlocutory Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the Defence should be struck out or summary judgment granted for disclosing no reasonable grounds for defending the claim
  2. 2 Whether NHBC is estopped from denying approval of designs
  3. 3 Whether the sale of the property and registration of ownership were valid for insurance purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that certain paragraphs of the Defence disclosed no real prospect of success and should be struck out, particularly those challenging the start date of insurance cover and related to the validity of the Buildmark Cover start date. However, the court found that Vascroft's defences on estoppel, notification of defects, access for remedial works, and reasonableness of the settlement were arguable and should proceed to trial. Vascroft was given leave to amend its pleading on estoppel.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part, refused in part

Orders

  • Paragraphs 2.2(i), 4.7(ii), 4.7(iii), 4.7(iv), 4.8(iii), 5.2(v), 5.2(vi), 8.1(i), and 8.1(ii) of the Defence struck out
  • Vascroft given leave to amend its Defence to plead estoppel