Citation: [2025] EWHC 3143 (TCC)
The court dismissed an application for summary judgment and/or striking out. The claimant reply did not raise any new causes of action and allowed the court to discern the nature of its claim, which had a real prospect of success.
Background
The dispute concerned the construction of an anaerobic digestion plant at Court Lodge Farm in Kent. The Respondent (“BioConstruct”) specialised in building renewable energy facilities. In 2018, the Applicant (“GTP”) entered into a subcontract with BioConstruct for the construction of the plant.
Once operational, the plant was intended to produce biomethane gas and electricity by processing the agreed Design Feedstock. GTP maintained that under the subcontract, the Design Feedstock was required to include specified quantities of whole plant, rye, silage, cattle manure with straw, maize silage, cattle slurry, wheat, straw, water, fermentation substrate, whey permeate and chicken droppings.
The subcontract set out 14 payment milestones. The dispute arose because GTP did not pay Milestones 14, RR1 and RR2. By its Application Notice, GTP sought summary judgment and/or strike-out of most of the claim. It argued that (a) the subcontract was a milestone contract in which payment was conditional on achieving each milestone, and (b) the pleaded case failed to show that Milestone 14 had been achieved. On that basis, GTP contended that the claims regarding Milestone 14 and the subsequent milestones (RR1 and RR2) should be struck out.
GTP advanced four alternative grounds to show that the case had no reasonable prospect of success: (i) 7 March 2020 was not “immediately preceding” 15 February 2020 as required by the subcontract; (ii) the required Design Feedstock had not been used; (iii) Steady State Operation had not been demonstrated; and (iv) BioConstruct had failed to provide the documentation required for Take Over.
Decision (Jonathan Acton Davis KC)
Application dismissed.
- Strike out: GTP argued that BioConstruct could not rely on the matters pleaded in its Reply because, to the extent that they amounted to causes of action, they should have been included in the Particulars of Claim. The judge held that the plea in the Reply did not introduce a new cause of action. The cause of action was already set out in the Particulars of Claim, and the Reply merely contained arguments responding to the denial by GTP. The Court found that, under CPR 3.4(2)(a), the nature of the claim was clear. No defect in the Statement of Claim was identified, and GTP had not suggested any.
- Summary judgment: BioConstruct had a reasonable prospect of success, and therefore there was no basis to strike out the paragraphs in the Statement of Case seeking relief. Given that the interpretation relied upon by BioConstruct was supported by legal authority, it could not be said to have no real prospect of success under CPR 24.3.
Representation
Gaynor Chambers acted for the Respondent, instructed by Muckle LLP.
The judgment can be found here.
