Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd v SIAC Construction

Citation: EWHC 3139 (TCC); [2006] BLR 139; 105 Con LR 73

Nature of case:
The court had to consider the operation of the pre-action protocol in circumstances where the defendant sought to join a Part 20 defendant and the claimant sought to join that party as a defendant in the main proceedings.  The question was whether a stay should be granted of both main and Part 20 proceedings to allow compliance with the pre-action protocol in relation to the new defendant.  The court, rejecting the application for the stay, set out the following relevant considerations for courts in exercising discretion in such cases:

  1. when was it known that the new party was going to join the action?
  2. what information about the dispute had been given to that party and when?
  3. how large a part did the new party play in the action as a whole?
  4. could a stay be accommodated without jeopardising the overall timetable?
  5. did justice require a new trial date?
  6. could the new party be compensated in costs for non-compliance with the protocol?
  7. was there any alternative to a stay within the existing timetable?

See further information:

[2006] BLR 139 TCC


Simon Hargreaves KC

  • Share