Evolve Housing v Bouygues (U.K.) Limited & Ors

In professional negligence and construction claims, a party must plead a concise and clear statement of the facts relied upon. The pleading must identify the alleged acts or omissions, the consequences said to have followed, and the loss claimed, so that the opposing party can understand the case, disclose relevant documents and prepare evidence. Vague or unparticularised pleadings may justify an order for further information or strike-out relief. Where disclosure already provides sufficient material to enable a party to particularise its case, the court may require further information to be served, while permitting supplementation if later disclosure reveals relevant material.

Evolve Housing brought claims arising from alleged fire-safety defects in the external cladding of a hostel. It alleged contractual and tortious breaches by the design and build contractor, construction consultancy and architectural firm, with related claims involving the specialist contractors and approved inspector.

The application concerned requests by the architectural defendant, Stride Treglown Limited, for further information about Evolve’s allegations concerning design, specification, coordination and inspection. Evolve argued that it could not properly particularise its case until further disclosure had been provided. The central issue was whether the information already disclosed enabled Evolve to serve the requested particulars.

1. Application granted. Stride Treglown Limited was entitled to an order requiring Evolve to serve the further information requested in Requests 13, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 23.
2. The applicable pleading standard requires a concise and clear statement of the facts relied upon. In a professional negligence claim, this includes identifying what the defendant failed to do, or did improperly, what would have happened but for the breach, and the loss said to have resulted. These are basic ingredients of a statement of case and are not confined to professional negligence claims. The approach in Building Design Partnership v Standard Life was adopted, drawing on Pantelli Associates Ltd v Corporate City Developments No2 Ltd.
3. Pleadings must not be vague or unparticularised. The opposing party must be able to understand the case, plead in response, identify relevant documents for disclosure and prepare supporting witness and expert evidence. The court must also be able to determine the issues fairly and efficiently. The principles stated in Towler v Wills were relevant to this requirement.
4. Evolve’s responses showed that its principal objection was lack of complete information about Stride Treglown’s role in the design and inspection work. However, the evidence established that considerable disclosure had already been made and that there was enough material to enable Evolve to provide the requested further information, even if it later required supplementation.
5. Evolve was therefore required to serve the further information, but could reserve its position and supplement the answers if the outstanding formal disclosure produced further relevant documentation. The costs-budget issues remained for a later hearing.