III The position of Sweett
III The position of Sweett
Sweett’s position is that LOR’s pleadings do not disclose a legally recognisable cause of action, because they do not plead a complete cause of action against Sweett. The case of Sweett is that if the pleadings were allowed to stand in their current form, this would (i) increase the costs and time associated with every step in the proceedings; (ii) make it (at best) difficult and expensive to ascertain the precise scope and nature of the issues arising for disclosure and for the necessary witness evidence and expert evidence; (iii) increase materially the time the court itself needs to spend in understanding the claim and determining it. It is therefore submitted on behalf of Sweett that the pleading as it stands is not consistent with the overriding objective (or with the parties' CPR 1.3 duty to help the court to further the overriding objective).
Sweett submits that there is no recognisable cause of action. They make complaint under four headings:
a failure to plead a cause of action in relation to the allegations of failure properly to carry out the initial review and/or monitor the design in relation to the allegations of design defects.
failure to plead a cause of action specifically in relation to the allegation of failure to monitor the development of the design at paragraphs 112.2(b), 119.2(b) and 166.2(b).
allegations as to the Vanity Units at paragraphs 117.1(a) to (e), which are hopeless on the face of LOR’s pleading and/or where no cause of action has been pleaded in relation to paragraphs (b) to (e). The associated draft amendment at paragraph 117.1A should be rejected on the same grounds, but in any event it (and the related amendment at paragraph 120.2(b)) is incomprehensible and is also resisted.
the remaining reference to “good practice” at paragraph 105.8(c) (Fire protection at the top of compartment walls) of the Particulars of Claim is objectionable.
- Heading
- I Introduction
- II The Applications
- III The position of Sweett
- IV The history of the pleadings and the strike out application
- V The law
- VI The Pantelli argument
- VII Fire safety defects
- VIII Roofs
- IX En Suite Doors
- X Vanity units
- XI The various appendices to Sweett’s skeleton argument
- XII Conclusion
- XIII The four points referred to at para. 22 above
- XIV Alleged inconsistency between cases advanced in the Sweett and MAAP proceedings
- XV Application to amend
- Conclusions
![HT-2022-000180 - [2024] EWHC 1088 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png)