In the recent judgment of Workman Properties Ltd v Adi Building & Refurbishment Ltd [2024] EWHC 2627 (TCC), HHJ Davies criticised Gloucestershire-based Workman Properties Ltd (“Workman”) and its Birmingham-based legal representatives for bringing a Part 8 claim in the London circuit instead of in the circuit with the most “significant links” to the dispute. 

Background

The dispute itself centred around interpretation of design responsibility under a contract for the expansion of Cotteswold Dairy in the Gloucestershire town of Tewkesbury where the employer, Workman, was based. The Contractor, Adi Building & Refurbishment Ltd (“Adi”), and both parties’ legal representatives, were all based in Birmingham. 

The Adjudications and Part 8 Proceedings

The dispute, referred to adjudication by Adi (the “First Adjudication”), concerned the scope of Adi’s design responsibilities under its amended JCT D&B Contract 2016 (the “Contract”). Workman argued that, by virtue of the Employer’s Requirements, Adi was responsible for design responsibility including the RIBA Plan of Work Stage 4/4(i) (the “Stage 4 Design”). Adi argued that the wording in paragraph 1.4 of the Employer’s Requirements warranted that Workman had completed the design up to the Stage 4 Design. Therefore, the fact that Workman had not reached such a stage amounted to a breach and entitled Adi to a “Change” under the Contract. The adjudicator ultimately agreed with Adi on this point. 

In response, Workman initiated Part 8 proceedings in the TCC in London seeking declarations that it was not contractually responsible for the Stage 4 Design and that it had not given a warranty to that effect (the “Claim”). Adi disputed the suitability of Part 8 proceedings alleging that extra-contractual facts needed to be considered in order to properly interpret the meaning of the Contract. 

While the Part 8 proceedings were progressing through the TCC, Adi successfully referred another dispute to adjudication and obtained a second adjudication decision (the “Second Adjudication”) which awarded it a large sum by virtue of Workman’s failure to complete the Stage 4 Design. 

The Court’s Decision

The Court held in favour of Workman, finding that: 

• Part 8 proceedings were suitable to determine this point of contractual interpretation as Adi had not shown that there were disputed facts surrounding the contractual interpretation. Further, it would be advantageous for both parties “to know what their contractual [design] rights and liabilities are…”. 
• Other than paragraph 1.4 of the Employer’s Requirements, all the relevant contractual terms (and especially the bespoke amendments to the Contract) indicated that Adi was responsible for the design up to an including the Stage 4 Design.
• Paragraph 1.4 of the Employer’s Requirements was “nowhere near sufficient” to be interpreted as a contractual warranty from Workman.

The Choice of Circuit

Unimpressed with the choice of circuit, the Judge stated that both TCCs in Bristol and Birmingham “are, due to their less heavy workload, able to list such claims for final hearing, and for interlocutory directions hearing… within a much shorter timeframe”.

He went on to comment that the relevant Practice Directions require claimants to issue claims in a circuit with “significant links” to the underlying dispute. Should there be competing links, the claim must be issued in the circuit with the “most significant link”. 

Links are established by reference to: 

1. The registered address of one or more of the parties,
2. The location of any of the witnesses giving oral evidence (in this case, the experts were based in Gloucestershire and Birmingham),
3. The location of the dispute or the land, goods or other assets in dispute, and/or
4. The location of the parties’ legal representatives. 

HHJ Davies determined that had this guidance been followed, the claim would have been issued in either Birmingham or Bristol which would have expedited its determination, facilitated the proper functioning of the civil justice system and “almost certainly have had this Part 8 claim finally determined well before the second adjudication decision…was promulgated”. 

Key Takeaways

Workman is a useful reminder that litigants should always seek to facilitate the efficient functioning of the justice system by pursuing claims in the circuit with the “most significant links” to the dispute in question, which may mean issuing a claim in the Courts outside of London.

This post was written by Henry Dalton and Jacob Pockney.