Bernhard's Rugby Landscapes Ltd v Stockley Park Consortium Ltd - Queens Bench Division, Official Referees' Business, 7 February 1997 - 82 BLR
One of the issues in this case was whether the plaintiff's statement of claim should be struck out as the defendant alleged that it contained a global claim. The Court found that a global claim is where the plaintiff does not seek to attribute specific loss to specific breaches of contract, but rather alleges a composite loss as a result of all the alleged breaches. The Court went on to say that such a claim is permissible where it is impractical to disentangle that part of the loss attributable to each head of claim and where the situation had not been brought about by delay or other conduct on the part of the plaintiff. In particular, the Court referred to the cases of London Borough of Merton v Stanley Hugh Leach Ltd (1985) 32 BLR 51 and Wharf Properties Ltd v Eric Cumine Associates (No 2) (1991) 52 BLR 1.
The plaintiff was a landscape contractor who entered into a contract for the construction of a new golf course at Stockley Park, Hillingdon. The contract entered into was based on the ICE Conditions, 5th edition, with the developer appointing a Construction Manager. The works commenced in the autumn of 1985. Unfortunately, things went wrong and in 1995 the plaintiff's issued a writ. During the course of the proceedings, the defendant sought to argue that an amendment to the statement of claim should not be permitted as it contained a global delay claim. This question fell to be decided by the Judge who held that it was possible to plead a global claim where it is impractical to disentangle that part of the loss attributable to each head of claim. The fundamental concern of the Court is that the dispute between the parties should be determined expeditiously and economically and, above all, fairly. Whilst a plaintiff is entitled to present its claim as it thinks fit, a defendant is entitled to know the case which it has to meet. Each case therefore must be judged on its own merits and a balance must be struck between excessive particularity and basic information.
One of the issues in this case was whether the plaintiff's statement of claim should be struck out as the defendant alleged that it contained a global claim. The Court found that a global claim is where the plaintiff does not seek to attribute specific loss to specific breaches of contract, but rather alleges a composite loss as a result of all the alleged breaches. The Court went on to say that such a claim is permissible where it is impractical to disentangle that part of the loss attributable to each head of claim and where the situation had not been brought about by delay or other conduct on the part of the plaintiff. In particular, the Court referred to the cases of London Borough of Merton v Stanley Hugh Leach Ltd (1985) 32 BLR 51 and Wharf Properties Ltd v Eric Cumine Associates (No 2) (1991) 52 BLR 1.
The plaintiff was a landscape contractor who entered into a contract for the construction of a new golf course at Stockley Park, Hillingdon. The contract entered into was based on the ICE Conditions, 5th edition, with the developer appointing a Construction Manager. The works commenced in the autumn of 1985. Unfortunately, things went wrong and in 1995 the plaintiff's issued a writ. During the course of the proceedings, the defendant sought to argue that an amendment to the statement of claim should not be permitted as it contained a global delay claim. This question fell to be decided by the Judge who held that it was possible to plead a global claim where it is impractical to disentangle that part of the loss attributable to each head of claim. The fundamental concern of the Court is that the dispute between the parties should be determined expeditiously and economically and, above all, fairly. Whilst a plaintiff is entitled to present its claim as it thinks fit, a defendant is entitled to know the case which it has to meet. Each case therefore must be judged on its own merits and a balance must be struck between excessive particularity and basic information.
This note is intended to provide general information about some recent and anticipated developments which may be of interest. It is not intended to be comprehensive nor to provide any specific legal advice and should not be acted or relied upon as doing so. Professional advice appropriate to the specific situation should always be obtained.
