Professional Negligence: Were the Defendant's Allegations of Negligence Properly Pleaded?

The case of Pantelli Associates Ltd v Corporate City Developments Number Two Ltd [2010] EWHC 3189 (TCC), which came before Mr Justice Coulson on 2 December 2010, provides a useful reminder of what the CPR requirement that a claim must consist of "a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies" means.

The Facts:

In September 2007 Corporate City Developments Number Two Ltd ('CCD') engaged Pantelli Associates Ltd ('Pantelli'), a firm of quantity surveyors, in relation to works at two building projects in North London. Pantelli carried out its services; however, neither project received planning permission and no fees were paid to Pantelli. Ultimately, Pantelli commenced proceedings seeking some £98,000 for unpaid fees.

In its Defence and Counterclaim, CCD raised (for the first time) vague allegations of poor performance and professional negligence. The counterclaim was for some £300,000.

Prior to the case management conference on 5 October 2010, an unless order was agreed by consent that unless CCD amended its Defence and Counterclaim by 4pm on 12 November 2010, providing proper particulars of any alleged defence or cause of action, certain paragraphs of the Defence and Counterclaim would be struck out.

CCD put forward a completely new document entitled 'Amended Defence and Counterclaim'. Pantelli's principal criticism of this document was that the allegations were wholly unsupported as CCD had simply added the words "failing to" or "failing adequately or at all to" as a prefix to each contractual term, thus turning the obligation into a breach of professional negligence. For example, the particulars of breach merely stated:

"failing adequately or at all to advise on feasibility and procurement" "failing to prepare adequate and/or accurate initial budget estimates" Accordingly, Pantelli brought an application to strike out the allegations of professional negligence and the counterclaim as CCD had failed to comply with the unless order.

The Issue:

In its allegations of professional negligence, did CCD's particulars of claim comply with the Civil Procedure Rules ('CPR') and the unless order which had been agreed between the parties?

The Decision:

Mr Justice Coulson held that CCD's particulars of claim were 'hopelessly inadequate' and should be struck out in accordance with the terms of the unless order.

He found that the amendments made to the Defence and Counterclaim did not meet the test set out in CPR 16.4(1)(a) which states...