HT-2022-000180 - [2024] EWHC 1088 (TCC)

The Court has before it two applications, namely:

Sweett’s position is that various paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim, dealing with the alleged design deficiencies in relation to the Fire Safety Defects, the Vanity Units and En Suite Doors and the Roofs, together with related allegations of breach of contract, should be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) under each of the grounds: (a) no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim; (b) the statement of case is an abuse of the Court’s process and/or (c) there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order, namely CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD16.

Sweett also objects to LOR’s Amendment Application (both in relation to the Particulars and the latest draft Amended Response to the Request for Further Information (“RFI”)) on the following bases, namely that the amendments:

Sweett has acknowledged that some of the amendments have progressed matters, but that they have not rendered the application to strike out redundant. The reason for this is that sometimes the entirety of the cause of action is not before the Court, and until that it is the case, it should not stand. In other instances, they complain that the pleading is inconsistent and confusing, and such that if it is allowed to stand, it is liable to cause insuperable problems at a trial. In many respects, they are not seeking that the strike out should occur in this application, but submit that LOR should be given a further opportunity to put forward a coherent case which pleads properly the alleged causes of action. As regards vanity units, Sweett submits that the case is bound to fail and should be struck out at this stage.

There had been a suggestion or expectation on the part of LOR that the amendments would be considered first, and then the strike out application would be considered. In line with a submission of Sweett, the Court considered at the outset that the submissions should be heard as a whole, and then the Court should rule on both applications. The arguments about the adequacy or otherwise of the pleadings and the amendments are entirely inter-connected. The decision to consider the two applications has been vindicated and is reflected by the fact that the discussion on the strike out application straddled most of the controversies in respect of the amendment application. This has rendered the amendment application section of this judgment short because it has been interwoven into the discussion on the various facets of the strike out application. This is the ruling on both applications.