Carillion JM Ltd v PHI Group Ltd

Citation: EWHC 496 (TCC)

Nature of case:
This was an application by PHI for permission to amend its Defence and to join a third party, Robert West Consulting (“Robert West”). Phi also applied for the trial of the third party proceedings to be heard with the trial of the main action. The court applied the matters relevant to the question of whether an additional claim should be heard separately from the main claim under CPR 20.9(2) and found that any consideration of those factors pointed very strongly to the proposed claim against Robert West being heard together with the main claim. However, the court decided that against that must be set the fact that a combined hearing could only take place by adjourning the trial, which had already adjourned once for unrelated reasons. The court held that the Part 20 claim would be heard and determined after the principal claim on the basis that there would be greater injustice to Carillion by adjourning the trial yet again than the injustice to PHI if the claim against Robert West was heard separately. A further determinative factor for the court was it’s finding that it was PHI’s conduct that had brought about the present difficulties and therefore it was right that PHI, not Carillion or Robert West, who should bear the attendant risks.

Link to Judgment


Krista Lee QC

  • Share