Co -Operative Group Ltd v Carillion JM Ltd & Anor
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE AKENHEAD
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Claimant, as the successor to a cooperative retail service, pursued litigation regarding the excessive settlement of a supermarket floor slab constructed by the Defendant and subcontractor Pennine Vibropiling. Initial suits began in 2007, focusing on alleged negligence and breach of contract by the Defendant. Procedural history shows a claim against John Allen was dismissed in 2010, followed by various applications, claims, compromises leading up to a 2014 trial. The Defendant's attempt to amend its Defence close to trial was refused, as was the Claimant's late application for a valuation expert. The court emphasized the discretion in withdrawing admissions and the challenges of late-stage amendments.
Mr Justice Akenhead:
At the Pre-Trial Review in this case, there were two contested applications, an application by the Defendant to amend, which took the bulk of the time, and an application by the Claimant to call an additional expert in the valuation field.
The factual background to these proceedings is that the Claimant is the successor to Cooperative Retail Services Ltd (“CRS”) for whom a supermarket site was developed by Cliveden Estates Ltd (“Cliveden”) in 1996 and 1997. Cliveden engaged John Allen Associates Ltd (“John Allen") as civil and structural engineering consultants for the development and employed the Defendant as the main contractor (by way of a contract under seal) to carry out the requisite works. The Defendant engaged as a sub-contractor Pennine Vibropiling Ltd (“Pennine”) for specialist work known as vibro replacement to stabilise what were considered to be poor ground conditions at the site. The performance specification produced by John Allen identified that the object was to enhance the ground’s "load carrying/settlement characteristics to safely support the ground bearing slabs and foundation loads for the intended structure together with any other loads specified…”. This vibro replacement work involved at least in part the placing of stone columns in the ground in effect to stabilise it and supposedly to provide adequate support for the floor slab to be laid on it. The work was done and practical completion was certified on 3 February 1997 and trading started within a few weeks. The Defendant had entered into a Collateral Warranty dated 23 December 1996 whereby it warranted to CRS that it had exercised and would continue to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in the performance of its duties to Cliveden under its building contract with the Defendant. There was also a warranty from John Allen to CRS. It is said by the Claimant that the supermarket floor slab suffered from excessive settlement and in effect that the ground improvement works carried out had been ineffective. It seems to be common ground that settlement at least in places was some 80mm.
Proceedings were issued separately in 2007 by the Claimant not only against the Defendant but also against John Allen. As the proceedings against this Defendant were stayed by consent, the proceedings against John Allen were heard first and the claim was dismissed, albeit that on the first day of that trial Part 20 proceedings against this Defendant and Pennine were compr