Image from Google Jackets

Cundall Johnson and Partners LLP v Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWHC 2178 (TCC), 19 September 2007. Considers an application for a stay of proceedings on the grounds of non compliance with the Pre-action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes (protocol). Applicant NHS Trust (W) had engaged respondent engineering firm (C) to provide engineering services on two construction projects. C made a claim against W for outstanding fees in respect of the projects. With regards to the pre-action correspondence, W argued C's solicitor's first letter didn't give enough detail about C's claim, that subsequent correspondence was also poor, and that information was released in a piecemeal manner. C argued its claim for fees for the first project fell outside the scope of the protocol and the claim was a matter of debt recovery. W applied for a stay of proceedings on the ground of non-compliance by C with the protocol. "Held": application granted. C had failed to comply with the provisions of the protocol as it failed to send a letter of claim which complied with para 3 of the protocol and therefore the contractual basis of C's claim was unclear until proceedings were issued.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 141908-2001

[2007] EWHC 2178 (TCC), 19 September 2007. Considers an application for a stay of proceedings on the grounds of non compliance with the Pre-action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes (protocol). Applicant NHS Trust (W) had engaged respondent engineering firm (C) to provide engineering services on two construction projects. C made a claim against W for outstanding fees in respect of the projects. With regards to the pre-action correspondence, W argued C's solicitor's first letter didn't give enough detail about C's claim, that subsequent correspondence was also poor, and that information was released in a piecemeal manner. C argued its claim for fees for the first project fell outside the scope of the protocol and the claim was a matter of debt recovery. W applied for a stay of proceedings on the ground of non-compliance by C with the protocol. "Held": application granted. C had failed to comply with the provisions of the protocol as it failed to send a letter of claim which complied with para 3 of the protocol and therefore the contractual basis of C's claim was unclear until proceedings were issued.