HT-2023-000311 - [2024] EWHC 3449 (TCC)

This is an application by the first defendant, Karakusevic Carson Architects LLP, to strike out the Claim Form issued by the claimant, Willmott Dixon Holdings Ltd. The action arises out of alleged defects in a residential development known as Bridport House in Hackney.

The claimant is the parent company of a Willmott Dixon company that was the design and build contractor for that project and I intend, in giving judgment, as was the case in the course of the hearing, to adopt “Willmott Dixon” as the short way of referring to the claimant. The employer was the London Borough of Hackney (“LBH”). The first defendant, which has been referred to as “KCA”, was the project architect for Bridport House and was engaged by an appointment made under seal and dated 11 August 2010. Practical Completion of the development was certified on 31 August 2011.

The Claim Form was issued on 30 August 2023. That is one day before the potential expiry of the limitation period, if that period is taken as running from the date of Practical Completion. The Claim Form sets out a little of the history in three short paragraphs and then, in the final two paragraphs, sets out the claim against KCA as follows:

“LBH has alleged that there are defects in the Works and that the Claimant is liable for these defects. LBH intends to claim against the Claimant for damages, costs and losses arising out of and/or as a consequence of the defects.

The Claimant claims damages, costs and losses from the Defendants to the extent that the defects were caused or contributed to by any breaches, negligence, contribution or default by the Defendants.”

These proceedings were issued not only against KCA but also against two other defendants, Peter Brett Associates LLP and Toureen Contractors Ltd. Willmott Dixon has also intimated proceedings against a number of other subcontractors or subconsultants who have agreed to standstill agreements.

By this application, the Claim Form in those terms is sought to be struck out on the grounds that it is an abuse of process.