< Back to insights hub

Newsletter

Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 25730 September 2025

Bitesize know how from the English Courts

"“…an important part of deciding whether disputes are substantially the same must be whether there is a likelihood of impingement upon findings of fact”."Construction Muzzy Ltd v Davis Construction (South East) Ltd [2025] EWHC 2258 (TCC)

Adjudication
The Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) has granted summary judgment and enforcement of two adjudication decisions arising from subcontracts for groundworks and drainage works at a construction site. The contractor had been asked to leave the site following assertions by the employer that the work was unsatisfactory. The adjudication related to outstanding sums owed to the contractor that the adjudicator awarded in full. The court concluded that it was not procedurally unfair of the adjudicator to allow a surrejoinder for which permission had not been given, where it responded to matters that had been significantly expanded in the rejoinder. In any event, the adjudicator’s consideration of the surrejoinder was peripheral to the decision making process. The court also rejected arguments of lack of jurisdiction on the drainage works adjudication on the basis that it was substantially the same as the groundworks adjudication. The two disputes arose from separate contracts and the factual matrix was different.

Construction Muzzy Ltd v Davis Construction (South East) Ltd [2025] EWHC 2258 (TCC), 8 September 2025

Arbitration – Evidence
The defendant in an arbitration arising out of disputes in relation to an investment agreement for a minerals mining project has unsuccessfully applied for production of certain documents from majority shareholders of its counterparty to the investment agreement. They were not parties to the arbitration proceedings. The applications under sections 43(2) and 44(4) of the Arbitration Act 1996 sought summons of a witness to produce the documents and an order for photographing of property. The application was refused on the basis that it was an impermissible request for third party disclosure, which did not identify specific documents and would be burdensome. The defendant had not satisfied the court that the arbitration could not be disposed of fairly without those documents.

VXJ v FY [2025] EWHC 2394 (Comm), 22 September 2025

Injunctions – Damages
The present dispute related to an injunction obtained to prevent allegedly defamatory statements. The injunction was subsequently discharged and the claimant argued that the court had no power to make an order for damages or costs in favour of the defendant because there were no “proceedings” before the court. At the time the injunction was made no undertaking in damages or to issue a claim form was given, nor was the latter ordered, and no claim form was ever issued. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decisions and confirmed that the CPR Part 23 application for an injunction did constitute proceedings to which the CPR applied. The court therefore had the power to make various orders including for damages and costs.

Gotti v Perrett [2025] EWCA Civ 1168, 22 September 2025

Nuisance
In a claim relating to a wood processing plant, the TCC held that the claims by various local residents failed. On an assessment of the evidence, the court did not accept that the nature, extent, impact and frequency of the dust emissions suffered by the residents was sufficient to constitute a substantial interference with the enjoyment of their properties. It also rejected a claim that the odour or noise emissions amounted to a nuisance, even if the interference caused by dust, odour and noise emissions was amalgamated.

Andrews and others v Kronospan Limited [2025] EWHC 2429 (TCC), 25 September 2025

< Back to insights hub

< Back to insights hub