Mulalley & Co Limited v STO Limited & Anor

A pleaded figure does not by itself make a claim one for a specified amount of money. The court examines the substance of the statement of case and whether the sum claimed is fixed or instead requires judicial assessment. A default judgment may establish liability while leaving the amount of a statutory contribution to be assessed. A judge hearing an application for default judgment may hold a hearing where statutory discretion must be exercised. A building liability order also requires a separate just-and-equitable judgment and does not follow merely from the defendant’s default.

Mulalley, a design and build contractor, claimed a contribution from Sto UK in respect of sums it had paid to the owner of a development for defective cladding works. Sto Germany, Sto UK’s parent and sole shareholder, was joined to the proceedings as the proposed subject of a building liability order under the Building Safety Act 2022. After Sto Germany failed to acknowledge service or defend the claim, Mulalley applied for default judgment. The issue was whether the pleaded sum, which included the amount of an earlier judgment against Mulalley, permitted a default judgment fixing the monetary liability, or whether the contribution and the amount attaching to Sto Germany had to be assessed.

1. Default judgment was to be entered against Sto Germany, but the amount of Sto UK’s contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 was to be assessed. The monetary extent of any liability attaching to Sto Germany under the Building Safety Act 2022 could not be fixed on this application.

2. For CPR 12.4, the court must consider the substance of the statement of case, not simply whether it states a figure. The earlier judgment sum was fixed, but the contribution claimed in respect of it was a separate amount which the court had to find just and equitable, having regard to Sto UK’s responsibility for the damage. The pleaded figure therefore did not make the contribution a specified amount of money. A building liability order also involves a separate just-and-equitable decision; it does not follow merely from Sto Germany’s default. The court left open whether the section 130 question could be decided before the contribution was assessed.

3. Even if the pleading stated a specified amount, an application under Part 23 is decided by a judge, and the administrative default judgment procedure under CPR 12.5 and 12.10 does not prevent a hearing. CPR 3.1(2) permits a hearing or other step to further the overriding objective. Edward v Okeke and Lux Locations Ltd v Yida Zhang did not preclude a hearing where the statutory assessments remained to be made. The court followed the procedural course adopted in Mulalley & Co Limited v Sto Limited and Sto SE & Co KGaA, entering default judgment and directing assessment.

4. The assessment hearing was to be listed on the first available date convenient to those concerned after 1 December 2026. Mulalley was to provide disclosure and/or witness evidence within 28 days. Any application by Sto Germany to set aside the default judgment had to be made within 28 days of service of the order. The court expressed no concluded view on whether the CPR’s use of “specified amount of money” changed the former distinction between liquidated and unliquidated claims.

not stated in the judgment.