HT-2024-LDS-000014 - [2024] EWHC 3067 (TCC)

The Defendant asserts that there is a substantial dispute of fact in relation to the application because there is conflicting evidence from the witnesses of fact relied upon for this application. Whilst superficially that submission is true, the Claimant agreed all of the additional facts put into the agreed schedule of facts by the Defendant except for paragraph 13. There the Defendant set out that it had undertaken planning, mobilisation and implementation work in relation to the work order from 16 October 2023 after receipt of the Street work permits. On that assertion, the Defendant would have been put to proof.

The difficulty with the Defendant’s submission is that the single additional nonagreed fact inserted into the otherwise agreed schedule of facts does not affect the determination of the declarations sought by the Claimant. The declarations require interpretation of the contract between the parties. In those circumstances, it is entirely appropriate to deal with the Claimant’s application by way of Part 8 proceedings.