[2006] EWHC 2133 (TCC), 11 May 2006. Considered whether new claims against architects for failing to properly supervise a construction contract were covered by the compromise agreement. Claimants (M) engaged defendant (N) as architects for an extension to their property. Disputes broke out, with M claiming that N failed to properly administer the contract with regards to the quality of the brickwork, mortar and pointing. N issued a Part 36 offer which M accepted in full and final settlement of all claims made. Two years later, M made new claims against N having discovered that the mortar used had led to erosion. N denied liability and M started proceedings. N lodged an application to strike out M's action, submitting the claims had already been part of the compromise and as being an abuse of process "Held": application refused. The new claims were not within the compromise agreement and it was not an abuse of process to pursue claims that were not included in the compromise and not known about until much later.