A case in point was Inserco Limited vs Honeywell Control Systems Limited. In 1990, Honeywell had subcontracted some electrical work to Inserco on the Canary Wharf development. During the early part of 1991, there were disputes on valuation matters. The parties eventually went to court to sort it out. The trial took place between June 1994 and March 1995, a total of 111 days.
The matter finally reached the Court of Appeal in February 1998 鈥� almost eight years after the work had begun on site! The whole process was characterised by countless arguments based on the slenderest of technical points. The Court of Appeal was scathing about the length of this litigation and the pointlessness of it all.
The early evidence from the cases that Ann cites suggests that the courts are achieving the "overriding objective" of the new civil litigation procedure rules, which is to enable the courts to deal with cases justly.
There is one aspect of the new rules that is particularly welcomed by specialist contractors. This is the new test for summary judgment in part 24, which is less rigorous than that under the old order 14. This should enable specialists to have a greater chance of success when seeking summary judgment in payment disputes.
The answer to the questions posed by Ann is that, like most in the industry, specialists will not fully understand all the implications of the new rules, but that will be a price worth paying if it means that cases such as Inserco vs Honeywell are not repeated.
Nonetheless, I know that specialists will not be prepared for the high up-front costs resulting from having to prepare claims in greater detail and enter into meaningful negotiations with the other party prior to starting litigation. But if this results in settlements at a much earlier stage than previously, so much the better.
Postscript
Rudi Klein is a barrister and chief executive of the Specialist Engineering Contractors Group.
