Legal News

Combustible cladding—limitation expiry is no excuse for inadequate particulars (Naylor v Roamquest)

Published on: 18 March 2021
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Combustible cladding—limitation expiry is no excuse for inadequate particulars (Naylor v Roamquest)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • Statement of Case
  • Measure of damages
  • What was the background?
  • Statement of Case
  • Measure of damages
  • What did the court decide?
  • Statement of Case
  • Measure of damages
  • More...

Article summary

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) reiterated that an impending limitation expiry does not relieve claimants of their burden of pleading and establishing a positive case. In this combustible cladding dispute, the leaseholder claimants made allegations of defects that were not based on inspections or opening up carried out by appropriately qualified experts and were not the subject of an expert report. The leaseholders were permitted to amend their pleadings so as to identify precisely the nature, extent and location of the alleged defects. However, given the lack of investigation, they may struggle to do so, in which case parts of their claim might become barred. The decision underscores the need for claimants and their legal representatives to engage early and manage limitation periods appropriately. The decision also comments on the measure of damages (remedial costs) where the claimants constitute a minority of leaseholders. Written by Alex Ottaway, senior associate (Australian solicitor) at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents