Recent judgement highlights issues with CPR Part 8 claims in construction disputes.
- Workman Properties Ltd v Adi Building & Refurbishment Ltd case reveals procedural missteps.
- Adi Building’s claims stemmed from design stage discrepancies in construction contracts.
- Court criticises inadequate lawyer adherence to CPR guidance, impacting case progress.
- Importance of proper procedural compliance evident in the court’s critique and costs involved.
The Technology & Construction Court (TCC) recently issued a judgement in the case of Workman Properties Ltd v Adi Building & Refurbishment Ltd, shedding light on the procedural complexities of CPR Part 8 claims. This judgement revealed significant issues with how the suitability of disputes for CPR Part 8 was determined, notably the improper handling by the involved parties.
In January 2022, Workman Properties Ltd (WPL) engaged Adi Building & Refurbishment Ltd for design and construction at Cotteswold Dairy, Gloucestershire. By 2023, Adi raised concerns that the designs provided failed to meet RIBA Stage 4, prompting claims for damages and additional costs. Following two adjudications, Adi was awarded over £3 million, underscoring the financial stakes at play.
During subsequent litigation in the TCC, WPL sought declarations about the construction contract, revisiting issues addressed in prior adjudications. Adi contested this, arguing that WPL’s claims were unsuitable for CPR Part 8 procedures, primarily due to the nature of the factual disputes involved.
Judge Stephen Davies expressed dissatisfaction with the parties’ solicitors for not adhering to judicial guidance on handling suitability issues. In particular, the failure to engage with the protocols outlined in the Cathay Pacific Airlines Ltd v Lufthansa Technik AG case was notable. This oversight led to elevated legal costs, with Adi’s statement reaching over £220,000, highlighting the fiscal impact of procedural mismanagement.
A key aspect of the judgement was the identification of failures in complying with established guidance for CPR Part 8 claims. The court pointed out specific lapses, such as the absence of a draft statement of facts and inadequate communication between the parties regarding procedural preferences.
Furthermore, WPL’s insistence that CPR Practice Direction 57AC was inapplicable was mistaken, as the exception cited did not apply. This case thus emphasises the vital need for strict compliance with procedural rules and the potential pitfalls when these are overlooked.
The judgement serves as a cautionary tale for legal practitioners, illustrating the potential for procedural errors to exacerbate disputes and increase costs significantly. The court highlighted that adherence to the suitability protocols and transparency in intentions and facts is essential to navigating Part 8 claims effectively.
This case underscores the necessity for rigorous adherence to procedural guidance in litigation, illuminating significant cost and efficiency impacts when these protocols are neglected.
