Workman Properties Limited v ADI Building and Refurbishment Limited
| Judge | His Honour Judge Stephen Davies |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 2627 (TCC) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court) |
| Counsel | Mathias Cheung,James Thompson |
| Date | 21 October 2024 |
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 2627 (TCC)
Case No: HT-2023-000458
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT (KB)
Rolls Building,
London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 21 October 2024
Before: His Honour Judge Stephen Davies sitting as a High Court Judge
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
WORKMAN PROPERTIES LIMITED Claimant
- and -
ADI BUILDING AND REFURBISHMENT LIMITED Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mathias Cheung (instructed by Trowers & Hamlins LLP, Birmingham) for the Claimant
James Thompson (instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 8 October 2024
Draft judgment circulated: 15 October 2024
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 21 October 2024 by circulation to the parties or
their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
Approved Judgment
Workman v ADI
His Honour Judge Stephen Davies:
1. This is a Part 8 claim where: (a) the claimant (sometimes referred to as WPL) asks the
court to make declarations relating to the interpretation of a construction contract, in
circumstances where an adjudicator has previously made determinations against the
claimant in relation to the same or similar issues as part of his overall determination
of the dispute referred, and (b) the defendant (sometimes referred to as ADI) argues
that: (i) the case is unsuitable for the Part 8 procedure, because it raises disputed
factual issues; and (ii) in any event, it is inappropriate to make the declarations sought
without a full Part 7 process at which all factual and legal issues are addressed at the
same time.
2. The dispute at the heart of this case is whether it is the claimant or the defendant
which is contractually responsible for completing the design of the works, the subject
of the JCT 2016 design and build contract in question, to RIBA stage 4 and/or to the
equivalent BSRIA stage 4(i) – for convenience referred to before me and in this
judgment as “stage 4/4(i)”. Further details as to the relevant background appear in
paragraph 37 and following and the relevant terms are explained at paragraph 54 and
following.
The approach of the parties to the suitability issue
3. I must start my judgment by making some observations on some aspects of the
approach taken by each of the parties to this case in relation to the vexed issue of
suitability. In so doing I am not intending any specific criticism of the solicitors for
the parties. However, in certain respects neither has fully complied with guidance
previously given by the courts as to how such cases should be conducted. As this
case illustrates, that approach has not ultimately assisted their clients nor has it
assisted the court in dealing with this case in an effective or proportionate manner.
4. In particular, neither party has properly engaged with the guidance referred to and
given by Mr John Kimbell QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Cathay
Pacific Airlines Limited v Lufthansa Technik AG [2019] EWHC 484 (Ch), as
subsequently endorsed by Mr Neil Moody KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
in Berkeley Homes (South East London) Limited v John Sisk and Son Limited [2023]
EWHC 2152 (TCC), notwithstanding that both decisions were referred to in the
relevant inter-solicitor correspondence at the outset.
5. Thus, in its letter before action the claimant’s solicitors contended that Part 8
proceedings were appropriate because any disputed factual issues would not form part
of the Part 8 claim, but did not back that up by including a draft agreed statement of
facts or suggesting a procedure for agreeing one.
6. Then, in its letter of response the defendant’s solicitors raised a plethora of objections
to the use of the Part 8 procedure, including that it would be necessary to analyse “the
facts at the time the parties entered into the contract”, but without explaining which
particular facts were relevant to the questions of contractual interpretation and were,
or might be, in dispute and why.
7. In response, without further engagement or discussion the claimant simply
commenced these Part 8 proceedings, without first asking the defendant to explain
which facts were relevant and why, and were or might be in dispute, or suggesting a
Page 2 of 20
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting