Judgment summaries


Vinci Construction Limited v Eastwood and Partners (Consulting Engineers) Limited & Others (O’Farrell J)

Construction – Claim for negligence and contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 – Summary judgment/strike out – Limitation – Section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980

On an application by the third party, GHW, against the second defendant, Snowden, for summary judgment or strike out of the additional claim, the court considered the date of accrual of the cause of action in negligence where relevant physical damage occurred, in the light of the Court of Appeal decision in URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 772 (CA).

The court also considered the test for relevant knowledge for the purpose of extending the limitation period under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980.

The full judgment [2023] EWHC 1899 (TCC) may be found here.

International Game Technology plc & Others v The Gambling Commission (Coulson LJ)

Procurement – Concession Contracts Regulations 2016 – Remedies Directive (89/665/EEC) – Preliminary Issue – Standing of the Claimants to bring proceedings.

The case concerned a procurement challenge arising out of the Competition for the Fourth Licence to run the National Lottery. The court determined whether the claimants, or any of them, lack standing to bring a claim under the Concession Contract Regulations 2016 and/or are economic operators to whom a duty is owned under Regulation 50 or Regulation 51 (as in force at the time of the Competition) for the purpose of the Competition.

The full judgment [2023] EWHC 1961 (TCC) may be found here.

Topalsson GmbH v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited (O’Farrell J)

Contract – Digital twin software development – Intellectual property rights – Termination – Damages.

The case concerned claims and counterclaims for damages arising out of the termination of an agreement for the development and supply of digital twin software for a new car configurator. The issues included:

(1)          whether Topalsson was obliged to deliver and install the software in accordance with an agreed programme or within a reasonable time;

(2)          whether Topalsson achieved any of the milestone dates (as initially agreed or revised), or carried out its obligations within a reasonable time;

(3)          whether Topalsson was impeded in its performance, or prevented from performing its obligations by RRMC;

(4)          whether Topalsson was in repudiatory or anticipatory breach of its performance obligations;

(5)          whether RRMC was entitled to terminate under the Agreement or at common law, or was in repudiatory breach by giving the notices of termination;

(6)          whether Topalsson induced RRMC to enter into the Agreement by making false representations;

(7)          whether Topalsson was entitled to an order for delivery up or destruction, and/or declaratory relief in respect of RRMC’s use of deliverables;

(8)          whether RRMC was entitled to an order for delivery up or destruction of the software; and

(9)          quantum.

The full judgment [2023] EWHC 1765 (TCC) may be found here.

Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd & Another (O’Farrell J)

Nuisance – Environmental Damage – Jurisdiction – Limitation periods – Authority to act.

Determination of the date on which actionable damage, if any, was suffered by the claimants resulting from an oil spill in the Bonga oilfield off the coast of Nigeria for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction. Whether the applicable limitation period to the claims under Nigerian law is five or six years. Whether, as a matter of Nigerian statutory law, case law or customary law, the claimants’ solicitors have authority to act for the claimants in the proceedings.

The full judgment [2023] EWHC 424 (TCC) can be found on the National Archives website (external link).

Avantage (Cheshire) Limited v GB Building Solutions Limited & Others (O’Farrell J)

Fire claim – Expert Evidence – Permission to change experts.

Consideration of the circumstances in which the court will grant permission to a party to change its experts and, if so, the conditions that may be applied to such permission.

The full judgment [2023] EWHC 802 (TCC) can be found on the National Archives website (external link).

Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Limited & Others (O’Farrell J)

Environmental damage claim – Group litigation Directions – Case management.

Group litigation directions in large class action arising out of the Fundao Dam disaster in Brazil. 

The full judgment [2022] EWHC 330 (TCC) can be found on the National Archives website (external link).

Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Limited & Others (O’Farrell J)

Environmental damage claim – Group litigation – Case Management.

Case management directions to determine the threshold liability issues for hearing and timetable to trial.  

The full judgment [2023] EWHC 1134 (TCC) can be found on the National Archives website (external link).

IBM United Kingdom Limited v LZLabs GmbH & Others (O’Farrell J)

Software Copyright – Reverse Engineering – Disclosure Guidance – Pleadings.

Disclosure guidance regarding document sampling, restoration of electronic documents, disclosure of confidential source code information, key word searches of large volume of documentation and pleadings.  

The full judgment [2023] EWHC 1183 (TCC) can be found on the National Archives website (external link).

Resource Recovery Solutions (Derbyshire) Limited v Derbyshire County Council (Constable J)

Application to Stike Out – Summary Judgment – Pleadings

The Defendant applied for summary judgment in relation to the proper meaning of two parts of a Contract. The Court declined the application on the basis that summary determination was not appropriate. The Defendant applied to strike out parts of the Claimant’s Reply pleading on various grounds. Following amendments made by the Claimant, no further changes were merited by way of strike out, notwithstanding some remaining infelicities in the pleading.

The full judgment [2023] EWHC 708 (TCC) can be found on the National Archives website (external link).

Sheffield Teaching Hospital Foundation Trust v Hadfield Healthcare Partnerships Limited & Others (O’Farrell J)

PFI Contracts – Construction – Standstill Agreements – Limitation – Concurrent duty of care in tort – Limitation – Security for Costs

On an application by Kajima for summary judgment or strike out of parts of the claim, the court considered construction of provisions of the contract and standstill agreements and whether there was a real prospect of success in establishing that Kajima owed a concurrent duty of care in tort. Whether the court had discretion to order Hadfield to provide security for costs in circumstances where Hadfield, a PFI SPV, was passing on to other parties claims from the Trust; if so, whether security should be ordered.

The full judgment [2023] EWHC 644 (TCC) may be found on the National Archives website (external link).