Construction Commercial Contracts Insurance & Reinsurance Personal Injury Product Liability Professional & Clinical Negligence
he was minded to strike out of his own motion most of the claims that RBH was advancing in thatsub-trial. There followed three days of argument, after which, on 2 November, the judge struck out9 of the 12 heads of claim before him, leaving the remaining 3 to be tried during the ensuing fewweeks. Permission to appeal was refused. The 3 remaining claims involved alleged negligence bythe architects and project managers in relation to the grant of extensions of time (EOT), and a claimagainst the M&E engineers in relation to late delivery of co-ordination drawings.The EOT trial started the following week and continued until 28 November. In the meantime,RBH’s junior counsel had to leave the trial in order to prepare a notice of appeal, which wassupported by a detailed skeleton argument and 4 ring binders of documents. RBH appealed againstthe striking out of 7 of the 9 claims. The application for permission to appeal was dealt with veryspeedily by the Court of Appeal, who gave RBH permission on 23 November. In the light of thisdevelopment, RBH applied unsuccessfully to have the claim against the M&E engineers for latedelivery of the drawings adjourned pending the outcome of the appeal against the striking out of similar claims against the architects and project managers. The judge refused and ordered thehearing of a preliminary issue on this claim, which he proceeded to hear and determine straight afterthe end of the EOT claim. After 3 days of evidence and argument, the judge decided this issueagainst RBH and then dismissed the claim.The result of all this was that RBH succeeded to a small extent on the EOT claim against thearchitects, but lost everything else.The appeal against the strike out and the refusal to adjourn the claim for late delivery for thedrawings was heard over 4 days in February 2001. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal andreinstated all 8 claims, and indicated that they should be tried before a different judge. All thedefendants applied to the Court of Appeal to vary its judgment, but after further submissions andargument, the applications were refused.The re-trial of the issues of liability took place in June 2001, before HH Judge Humphrey LLoydQC. The trial finished at the end of July. Judgment was reserved. It was eventually delivered indraft (over 200 pages) at the end of September 2002. RBH won 7 of the 8 claims struck out ordismissed by Judge Seymour and reinstated by the Court of Appeal. It lost the claim against the
Leading Counsel for the RBH.