Tesco v Constain - Thomson Reuters

2002 WL 347140 Page 12002 WL 347140 (QBD (T&CC)), [2002] EWHC 482(Publication page references are not available for this document.)HT-01-253, NEUTRAL CITATION NO. [2002]EWHC 482(TCC)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEIN THE QUEENS BENCH DIVISIONTECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTIONCOURTSt. Dunstan's House,133-137, Fetter Lane,London, EC4A 1HDTuesday 26th March, 2002B e f o r e: HIS HONOUR JUDGE RICHARDSEYMOUR Q.C.HTA ARCHITECTS LIMITED, HUNTTHOMPSON ASSOCIATES (A FIRM) Claimantsv.(1) COUNTRYSIDE PROPERTIES PLC (2)TAYLOR WOODROW PLC (3) TAYWOODHOMES LIMITEDDefendantsMichael Douglas Q.C. ( instructed by HammondSuddards Edge for the Claimants) David FriedmanQ.C. and Nerys Jefford ( instructed by CampbellHooper for the Defendants)J U D G M E N TAPPROVED BY THE COURT FOR HANDINGDOWN (SUBJECT TO EDITORIALCORRECTIONS)Introduction1. Towards the end of the 1990s the GreenwichPeninsula to the south-east of London wasconsidered ripe for redevelopment. One of theschemes which was undertaken was that for theconstruction of the Millennium Dome. In July 1997the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. John Prescott,announced a competition for the design anddevelopment on a 13 hectare site of a housingproject to be called Greenwich Millennium Village(GMV). The freehold owner of the site of GMVwas English Partnerships (EP).2. Messrs. Hunt Thompson Associates (HTA) wasa firm of architects which was established in 1969.One of the founding partners in the practice wasMr. Bernard Hunt. The practice of HTA wastransferred in December 1998 to a limited liabilitycompany which had been incorporated to take itover. That company was, and is, called HTAArchitects Ltd. (HTA Ltd.). HTA and HTA Ltd.are the Claimants in this action.3. After the announcement of the competition forthe design and development of GMV HTA decidedto seek to form a team to submit an entry. Theteam needed to include both entities able to prepareappropriate designs and entities able to translateany design into structures. Essentially what wasrequired was both architects, supported by otherappropriate professional disciplines, such asengineers, and house builders.4. In his efforts to put together a team Mr. Huntapproached representatives of Berkeley Homes Ltd.(Berkeley), Moat Housing Group (Moat) andCopthorn Homes Ltd. (Copthorn). Copthorn is asubsidiary of Countryside Properties Plc(Countryside). Countryside is the first Defendantin this action.5. According to the evidence of Mr. Hunt in hisfirst witness statement, dated 19 February 2002,Mr. Terry Sullivan of Berkeley suggested that HTAinclude in its team a firm of architects called ColeThompson Associates (CTA). CTA had beeninvolved in the development of a type of housecalled an Integer home. Integer is apparently acontraction of the words intelligent and green.6. Mr. Hunt decided that it was appropriate toseek to involve in the team the well-knownSwedish-based architect Mr. Ralph Erskine.7. At an early point a fourth architectural practicebecame involved with the team. That practice wasMessrs. Baker-Brown McKay (BBMK). Theparticular expertise of BBMK was in relation to thedesign of what was described as the TeleservicesCentre.8. By about October 1997 it had been decided thatit was appropriate to include within the team a firmof engineers. So it was that Messrs. BattleMcCarthy (BM) became involved.9. Despite the initial interest of Berkeley, by aboutthe beginning of September 1997 it had droppedout and its place had been taken by TaywoodHomes Ltd. (Taywood). Taywood is a subsidiaryof Taylor Woodrow Plc (TW). TW and Taywoodare, respectively, the second and third Defendantsin this action.10. Also by about the beginning of September1997 the place of Copthorn in the team had beenCopr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works