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

Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd v Harron Homes Ltd [2020] EWHC 1190 (TCC) (13 May 2020)

19th Jun 2020

Lucie Briggs successfully acted for the respondent Harron Homes Ltd in a dispute with Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd (“TW”) which had sought an order under CPR 31.16 for pre-action disclosure against Harron Homes Ltd (“HH”).

The underlying dispute between the parties concerned responsibility for drainage issues on a large plot of land pursuant to a “Collaboration Agreement”.

HH referred the dispute to Expert determination pursuant to clause 24 of the Collaboration Agreement. TW wanted to commence TCC proceedings having raised a jurisdictional objection to expert determination.

In its application, TW sought disclosure from the respondent of documents including design drawings, design calculations, as-built drawings of the drainage and correspondence concerning the designed allowances and the adoption of the drainage by the statutory undertaker.

Mr Justice Fraser held that, although the jurisdictional threshold for ordering pre-action disclosure was crossed, it would not be appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion to make an order because HH had referred the dispute to expert determination. Mr Justice Fraser stated that the court in all cases would be astute to prevent pre-action disclosure from being used to frustrate, impede or interfere with contractually agreed ADR mechanisms and that granting the instant application would run the very real risk of doing that. He held that disclosure of documents necessary or desirable for the proper conduct of the expert-determination reference was a matter for the expert, not the court. In the circumstances, an order from the court for disclosure of such documents was not “desirable” (still less necessary) within the test set out in r.31.16.

Mr Justice Fraser endorsed the comments made by Jackson J in Birse Construction Ltd v HLC Engenharia e Gestao de Projectos SA [2006] EWHC 1258 (TCC) that “Given the level of co-operation between opposing parties, which is a normal feature of TCC litigation, I would not expect an order for pre-action disclosure to be appropriate in most cases which come before this court”.

Lucie Briggs (instructed by Clarion Solicitors Ltd) for the Respondent.

To read the full judgment please click here: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd v Harron Homes Ltd [2020] EWHC 1190 (TCC) (13 May 2020).

13 May 2020





Related Juristictions

Register for updates

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

 

Register