Background
United Living was the design-and-build contractor for the conversion of a London property into the Wenlock Building and appointed Hawkins Brown Limited as architect. After fire-safety and façade concerns emerged, the building owner brought proceedings against United Living. United Living then pursued Hawkins Brown and others in earlier proceedings to recover sums arising from the owner’s claim. Those proceedings were settled in March 2023, with Hawkins Brown agreeing to pay £1.575 million.
United Living subsequently brought the present proceedings against Hawkins Brown and two other defendants, alleging defects in the Velfac façade system and inadequate fire protection of structural steelwork. It claimed estimated costs of £3.142 million for replacing the façade system and £4.209 million for remedying the structural-steel defects. Hawkins Brown sought to strike out the claim as an abuse of process, arguing that United Living could and should have advanced it earlier and had failed to disclose the potential claim during the earlier mediation and settlement. Alternatively, Hawkins Brown sought summary judgment on the grounds that the settlement had compromised the claims or that United Living was estopped from pursuing them.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Eyre dismissed Hawkins Brown’s application. Applying the broad, merits-based approach to abuse of process, the court held that the current proceedings were not oppressive or unjust harassment. Although the claims arose from the same development and professional appointment, their central issue—whether Hawkins Brown breached its duties when considering the design and suitability of the Velfac system—had not been in issue in the earlier proceedings. United Living’s earlier exclusion of the Velfac costs reflected a genuine assessment, encouraged by Hawkins Brown’s own position, that the problems resulted from workmanship rather than architectural fault.
By the 2023 mediation, United Living knew that a further claim might exist but had not fully investigated it or decided to bring it. Its failure to disclose that possibility to Hawkins Brown or the court did not make the later proceedings abusive. The Aldi Stores case-management guidelines were not engaged by such an inchoate and speculative claim; alternatively, any failing was insufficient to alter the abuse assessment.
The court also rejected the settlement and estoppel arguments. Properly interpreted, the 2023 agreement settled the defined dispute in the earlier proceedings rather than granting a general release of every potential claim arising from Hawkins Brown’s involvement in the development. United Living had made no representation that the settlement had that wider effect.
Key Takeaways
- A later claim is not necessarily abusive merely because it arises from the same project and professional appointment as earlier settled litigation; the court examines whether the issues are distinct and whether the later proceedings are oppressive or unjust harassment.
- A party’s failure to disclose a merely potential, insufficiently investigated claim during existing litigation does not automatically breach the Aldi Stores guidelines or require the later claim to be struck out.
- A settlement framed by reference to claims in identified proceedings will not ordinarily operate as a general release of all potential claims unless its language gives it that broader effect.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the fact-sensitive nature of Henderson abuse-of-process applications in complex construction disputes, where defects and possible professional responsibility may emerge incrementally. The ability to investigate a claim earlier is relevant, but it is not conclusive where the later allegations present genuinely distinct issues and their pursuit does not amount to unjust harassment.
It also underscores the importance of settlement drafting. A party seeking finality across an entire project should negotiate an express general release; a compromise limited to a defined dispute may leave materially different claims available for later proceedings.