Persimmon Homes Limited v Amec Foster Wheeler Group Limited & Ors

Construction pleadings must state enough facts for the defendant to understand and answer the case, and to prepare for trial. The required detail depends on proportionality: a claimant need not plead every defect and location where the pleaded categories and nature of the alleged failures sufficiently define the case. Experts must address pleaded issues, not fill gaps, and defendants need not reconstruct the claim from disclosure. Where further detail is needed, targeted requests under Part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 may be appropriate. A full Scott schedule is not the default for a complex construction claim.

Persimmon claimed remedial costs for alleged fire-safety defects at a residential development, pursuing the design-and-build contractor under the Defective Premises Act 1972 and seeking building liability orders against two associated companies under the Building Safety Act 2022. At a case-management hearing, the defendants sought a full Scott schedule detailing each defect, its location, the remedial work and its cost. The external defects were pleaded by wall type and category; the internal defects were pleaded by category with sample photographs. The issue was whether the pleadings gave sufficient particulars without a comprehensive schedule.

1. The defendants’ request for a full Scott schedule was refused. Pleadings must give enough detail for a defendant to understand the case, plead in response, disclose relevant documents and prepare witness statements and for trial. Experts must address the pleaded issues, and defendants need not reconstruct the case by trawling disclosure.

2. The court adopted the approach in Standard Life Assurance Ltd v Building Design Partnership Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1793, [2022] 1 W.L.R. 878, including its rejection of pleading every detail to the nth degree as a default. The pleading must strike a proportionate balance: it should define the case to be met without requiring detail that is unnecessary to try the principal issues. The court also relied on the basic pleading requirements repeated in Pantelli Associates Limited v Corporate City Developments No 2 Limited [2011] PNLR 12.

3. The external-wall particulars were thin but sufficient. Persimmon did not have to identify every affected window or every individual cavity barrier. The internal-defect pleading was thinner and probably needed greater particularisation, but that did not justify a comprehensive schedule setting out every defect and location.

4. The proportionate course for further detail was a targeted request under Part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The judge indicated that a properly targeted and proportionate request should be answered, while making clear that any later application for particulars would be decided on its own terms. The court therefore declined to order a Scott schedule.

not stated in the judgment.