The High Court has refused a request by AECOM Limited to hear three legal issues before the full trial of a dispute over alleged design defects in works for SSE Renewables (Ireland) Limited.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on 11 December 2015, concerns a claim against AECOM and William and Henry Alexander (Civil Engineering) Limited. Northstone (N.I.) Limited is named as a third party. The court did not decide whether the alleged design defects occurred or whether any party was liable.
AECOM sought preliminary rulings on whether SSE’s negligence and breach of duty claims could proceed where the pleaded loss was pure economic loss; whether alleged advice and services provided after completion of design works could support an assumption of responsibility; and whether the defendants could be treated as concurrent wrongdoers if SSE could not maintain its tort claims against AECOM.
Justice Hedigan said preliminary hearings should be approached cautiously, particularly in the Commercial Court, where dividing a case into stages can add delay and cost. The full trial could start in March 2016 and was expected to last about 12 weeks. Discovery had been made and witness statements, including expert reports, were being finalised, so much of the pre-trial work and cost had already been incurred.
The judge also noted that the law on recovery for pure economic loss remained unclear and that an appeal from a preliminary ruling could delay the case further. He found that the parties disputed the meaning of material pleaded facts, including whether alleged post-design advice was limited to examples identified in replies to particulars. He did not decide that dispute, but said it meant the relevant facts were not agreed.
The court was also unconvinced that the proposed questions could be separated from the remaining issues, including claims between parties under notices of indemnity and contribution. Even if AECOM succeeded on the preliminary issues, it would remain in the case on those matters.
AECOM alternatively proposed dividing the case into a liability trial followed by a damages trial. The judge refused that proposal too, finding little apparent benefit because much of the evidence would concern liability and the damages assessment might be relatively straightforward, with some parts potentially agreed. The court ordered neither a preliminary hearing nor a modular trial; the application was refused.