Consent order confusion – 2

Richardson Roofing Co Ltd v Ballast Plc and others [2008] EWHC 1806 (TCC)

The claimant had claimed against a contractor for loss and damage allegedly caused by delay in completing certain works in respect of a property development. The contractor had subsequently issued a claim against the applicant architects, who had been appointed to design and supervise the works. At the trial of preliminary issues, the judge adjourned the hearing, striking out the particulars of claim and ordering a stay of further proceedings in the main action until the claimant had obtained permission to serve substituted particulars of claim. Under a consent order, the claimant was to pay the architects their costs incurred and thrown away by the adjournment of the trial. The order also provided for the adjournment of the architect’s application for the costs of, and occasion by, the striking out of the particulars of claim. The architects contended that the costs to be paid by the claimant pursuant to the order included those costs incurred in preparing for and attending the trial of the preliminary issues and it was appropriate to give a direction to the costs judge in those terms.