000			01687cab a2200193 4500
001			##L136532
008			070206n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u136532
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aCarlo Mantegazza and another v Neil Holland Architects Ltd and another
260			_c2006
490		0	_aConstruction Industry Law Letter _vOctober 2006, 2381-2384(4)
520			_a[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.
650	2	4	_aMANTEGAZZA AND ANOTHER V NEIL HOLLAND ARCHITECTS LTD AND ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aCIVIL PROCEDURE RULES PART 36
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
942			_n0
999			_c78334 _d78334