McGlinn v Waltham Contractors Ltd & Ors, Court of Appeal - Technology and Construction Court, March 28, 2007, [2007] EWHC 698 (TCC),[2008] Bus LR 278

Extract

---

McGlinn v Waltham Contractors Ltd & Ors, Court of Appeal - Technology and Construction Court, March 28, 2007, [2007] EWHC 698 (TCC),[2008] Bus LR 278

Neutral Citation Number [2007] EWHC 698 (TCC)

Case No: HT 05 120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT

St Dunstan’s House

133-137 Fetter Lane

London, EC4A 1HD

Date: 28th March 2007

Before :

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER COULSON QC

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

| |IAN McGLINN |Claimant |

| |- and - | |

| |WALTHAM CONTRACTORS LTD |First Defendant |

| |- and - | |

| |HUW THOMAS ASSOCIATES |Second Defendant |

| |- and - | |

| |DJ HARTIGAN & ASSOCIATES LTD |Third Defendant |

| |- and - | |

| |WILSON LARGE & PARTNERS |Fourth Defendant |

| | | |

| |- No. 5 - | |

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr A Williamson QC & Mr J Selby (instructed by Speechly Bircham) for the Claimant

Mr A Bartlett QC & Mr G Hamilton (instructed by Freeth Cartwright) for the Second Defendant

Hearing dates: 12 & 13 March 2007

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment

His Honour Judge Peter Coulson QC:

A. THE ISSUES

1. On 21 February 2007, I handed down my main Judgment on the defects issues.[1] In summary, I found that, on his overall claim for £3,649,481.34, Mr McGlinn was entitled to recover:

a) £438,850.76 as against HTA;

b) £134,825.61 as against DJH;

c) No damages at all as against WL.

2. On 22 February 2007, I decided that WL were entitled to recover their costs of the defects issues, and I ordered an interim payment on account of those costs in the sum of £180,000.[2] At the parties’ request, I left over the precise form of the order in respect of WL’s costs, and any determination of the dispute as to whether it should be Mr McGlinn or HTA who pay those costs. It has sensibly been agreed that the determination of the costs as between Mr McGlinn and DJH must await the outcome of the further trial on the over-valuation issues, due to take place in September 2007.

3. Accordingly, the following issues arise now for determination:

a) What sum, if any, should be awarded to Mr McGlinn against HTA in respect of his claim for interest (Section B below)?

b) Should Mr McGlinn or HTA be liable to pay WL’s costs in respect of the defects issues (Sections C - D below)?

c) What is the appropriate order as between Mr McGlinn and HTA in respect of the costs incurred by both parties in connection with the defects issues (Sections E – G below)?

The second and third issues noted above are of considerable significance. WL’s costs of the defects issues are estimated at £880,000 odd. HTA’s costs of the defects issues, 75% of which they seek from Mr McGlinn, are estimated at £1.2 million odd. Mr McGlinn’s total costs, a high proportion of which he now seeks against HTA, are estimated in the sum of £2.2 million. Thus the total amount at stake in respect of these various costs disputes is in excess of £4 million, which is, of course, more than the amount of Mr McGlinn’s substantive claim at the trial.

B. INTEREST AS AGAINST HTA

4. The total sum of £438,850.76, which I have awarded against HTA as damages, breaks down into two component parts. The largest element, in the total sum of £380,225.49, is made up of the cost of individual items of repair work to reflect those defects for which I have found HTA liable. This work has not been carried out and therefore this money has not yet been spent. The smaller of the two sums, namely £58,625.27, represents my assessment of that part of the cost of the so-called ‘enabling works’, carried out and paid for in 2003 and 2004, which I concluded was recoverable as damages against HTA. Potentially different considerations appl...

See the full content of this document

---