Environment Agency v Lewin Fryer and Partners
Environment Agency v Lewin Fryer and Partners
- 2006
[2006] EWHC 1597 (TCC), 6 July 2006. The Environment Agency (EA) claimed damages for negligence and breach of contract against Lewin Fryer and Partners (LFP) arising out of the design and construction of the Jubilee River Project. This was a flood alleviation scheme covering Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton. The EA allege that, after this date, there were floods and extensive damage due to deficiencies in the design work carried out by LFP. LFP sought extensive pre-action disclosure against three contractors involved in the Project,but were abandoned just before or at the outset of that hearing. LFP sought to recover against the EA their own costs of that pre-action disclosure application, together with the costs that they have been ordered to pay the three successful contractors. LFP say that these costs would never have been incurred but for the failures on the part of the EA to carry out their own disclosure obligations properly and their conduct during the relevant period of February to April this year. "Held": LFP's claims for the costs arising out of their applications for pre-action disclosure against two of the contractor was rejected, but claim for the costs arising out of the application against one of the contractors was accepted.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY V LEWIN FRYER AND PARTNERS
England--886-
[2006] EWHC 1597 (TCC), 6 July 2006. The Environment Agency (EA) claimed damages for negligence and breach of contract against Lewin Fryer and Partners (LFP) arising out of the design and construction of the Jubilee River Project. This was a flood alleviation scheme covering Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton. The EA allege that, after this date, there were floods and extensive damage due to deficiencies in the design work carried out by LFP. LFP sought extensive pre-action disclosure against three contractors involved in the Project,but were abandoned just before or at the outset of that hearing. LFP sought to recover against the EA their own costs of that pre-action disclosure application, together with the costs that they have been ordered to pay the three successful contractors. LFP say that these costs would never have been incurred but for the failures on the part of the EA to carry out their own disclosure obligations properly and their conduct during the relevant period of February to April this year. "Held": LFP's claims for the costs arising out of their applications for pre-action disclosure against two of the contractor was rejected, but claim for the costs arising out of the application against one of the contractors was accepted.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY V LEWIN FRYER AND PARTNERS
England--886-