The High Court dismissed Noel Manning’s claim against the National House Building Guarantee Company Limited, which operates the HomeBond scheme, ruling that every element of the claim was bound to fail. The decision followed the company’s application to strike out the proceedings; it was not a trial of the underlying dispute.
Manning, who developed a fire-safety system called FireBar, had alleged that the company’s House Building Manual set inadequate standards for fire stopping in party walls and hindered the system’s marketing. He also claimed that a March 2000 letter to Kingscroft Developments effectively prohibited FireBar’s use. Those were allegations in his pleadings, not findings that the company had acted unlawfully.
The company sought dismissal both for want of prosecution and on the basis that the pleadings disclosed no viable claim. Justice Laffoy found that Manning’s delay was inordinate and inexcusable, but concluded that the balance of justice did not justify striking out the case for delay. She was not satisfied that the delay had caused serious prejudice or created a substantial risk that the company could not receive a fair trial.
The court then considered whether the claims were bound to fail. It found that the company was a private operator of a house-purchaser guarantee scheme, not a regulator with responsibility for making or enforcing building regulations. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government had already been removed as a defendant by consent in November 2009.
That meant Manning could not pursue against the company declarations about whether the FireBar system complied with the regulations or whether the Minister’s fire-safety guidance document complied with them. The court also found no basis for a declaration that the company’s Manual breached the regulations, given that it replicated the Minister’s guidance document and Manning had abandoned his challenge to that document.
On negligence, the judge held that the company owed no duty to a supplier of building services to set standards that would help market one product over another. The March 2000 letter, read in context, required remedial work to address fire-stopping and other construction deficiencies at Kingscroft sites; it did not prohibit FireBar. Manning’s own later correspondence acknowledged that FireBar units at some houses had been incorrectly fitted. The court also noted that he knew of no house or apartment denied HomeBond certification because FireBar was used, leaving no established loss from the alleged interference.
The judge found the remaining competition, fair-procedure and constitutional claims unsustainable on the case as pleaded. The order dismissed the claim under the court’s inherent jurisdiction because it was bound to fail.