黑洞社区

On Monday Multiplex and Cleveland Bridge completed a hard fought match, in which both teams鈥� players earned millions. Like many sporting contests it is subject to appeal.

For now, CBUK must repay 拢6m an adjudicator awarded previously (including interest). Unfortunately, the parties spent 拢22m in legal and experts鈥� fees identifying how much this corrective transfer should be.

The judgment blames the parties (as the order that CBUK, despite technically losing, should pay only about 拢1m of Multiplex鈥檚 costs confirms). They, in effect, forced the court to carry out a final account. The judge suggested the parties were made for each other. Multiplex adopted a 鈥渞uthless but lawful鈥� policy of issuing negative interim certificates in breach of their contractual duty to consult, while CBUK withheld design information for two months after they left the site 鈥� conduct that was 鈥渃ertainly no less deplorable鈥�.

This is extreme litigation, reminiscent of the BCCI case (costs: 拢100m) and Equitable Life (拢50m), both over claims that were ultimately abandoned. They prompted much soul searching in the commercial court and case management changes are being piloted.

There may be pressure on the Technology and Construction Court to adopt some of these changes (such as restricting pleadings to 25 pages). Some are already in place (for example, limiting disclosure, not that that stopped the trial bundle comprising 550 files.

The judge adopted not only established practices to crack the case (such as preliminary issues) but also special post-trial hearings. It is a shame that after all his improvements to the TCC, this may be Sir Rupert Jackson鈥檚 last judgment (he is going to the Court of Appeal).

Parties, lawyers and courts might all learn from this case how to avoid and resolve disputes, but will it put people off litigating? I doubt it.