Defence strike out—still leaves a hill to climb in proving the claim in the absence of the defendant and their evidence (One Hyde Park v Laing O’Rourke)
Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) awarded damages totalling approximately £35 million against a main contractor for construction defects in a luxury residential development. The claim by the freehold owner, under a collateral warranty, concerned serious defects at One Hyde Park including corroded chilled water pipework, failed butterfly valves, defective soldered joints and a non-functioning pantograph cradle. The defendant participated fully in proceedings until withdrawing funding and entering liquidation just before the February 2025 trial date despite its parent company's strong financial position. Following the defendant’s elective withdrawal, the court struck out the defence under CPR 39.3(1) but still required the claimant to prove its case, with the court's ability to test evidence being heavily constrained in the absence of cross-examination. The status of factual and expert evidence, where the defendant is not represented or present at trial, is considered and decided in this judgment, with reference to various legal authorities. Through examination of the evidence, including analysis of joint expert statements, the court found systematic breaches of the JCT contract through poor installation workmanship and defective materials, while confirming that expert reports have no evidential status unless the expert is called to verify them on oath. The judge criticised the defendant's conduct as ‘commercially amoral’ and accepted unchallenged expert evidence on the substantial remedial costs.