Cookie consent

This website uses cookies to collect information about how you use this website. Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookies on atkinchambers.com

Cookies are files saved on your phone, tablet or computer when you visit a website.

Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookie settings

Atkin Chambers Limited use two types of cookie files, analytical cookies and necessary cookies. You can choose which cookies you are happy for us to use.

Analytical cookies that measure website use

Atkin Chambers Limited use Google Analytics to measure how you use the website so it can be improved based on user needs. Atkin Chambers do not allow Google to use or share the data about how you use this site.

Google Analytics sets cookies that store anonymised information about:

  • how you got to the site
  • the pages you visit on atkinchambers.com, and how long you spend on each page
  • what you click on while you’re visiting the site

Strictly necessary cookies

These essential cookies do things like remember your progress through a form (for example if you register for updates). They always need to be on.

Save changes

Russell & Anor v Stone (t/a PSP Consultants) & Ors [2017] EWHC 1555 (TCC)

29th Jun 2017

The defendant project managers sought an order striking out, or alternatively seeking summary judgment in respect of, part of a claim brought against them by the claimant employers. The claimants are seeking almost £2.2 million in damages against the defendants arising out of a project to demolish the claimant’s existing house and build a modern house in its stead in Highgate, North London. Work took place between 2010 and 2016, involved three successive contractors, and was “dogged by difficulty”.

The decision deals with the attempt by the defendants to strike out three of the claims (worth about £1m) on the grounds that they were statute-barred. In addition to arguments as to when the relevant causes of action actually accrued, there were other significant issues between the parties many concerning three ‘Standstill Agreements’ entered into between November 2015 and April 2016. Those agreements were based on the PLC template, amended to suit the purposes of the parties.  The dispute around the agreements centred on whether they suspended or extended time: if they suspended time then proceedings were issued before the expiry of the relevant limitation periods; if not, then proceedings were time barred.

Coulson J concluded that the Standstill Agreements had suspensory effect such that the claims were not statute-barred and the matter could proceed to trial.

(Instructed by Elborne Mitchell LLP)

Related barristers: Jennifer Jones

To view the full judgment please click here.

29 June 2017





Related Juristictions

Register for updates

To keep in touch with news and updates from Atkin Chambers:

 

Register