Sutton and East Surrey Water Plc v Monarch Chemicals Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 1260 (TCC)
After a water company settled its claim over an incident at a treatment works, the court resolved who should bear it between the chemicals supplier and the haulier that delivered. Adrian Williamson KC held the haulier was not vicariously liable and owed no contribution.

Essendi UK Hotels 2 Limited v London Property Company Limited [2026] EWHC 1354 (TCC)
A hotel operator and its landlord fought over who must remove intolerable-risk cladding from the tower housing the Ibis London Wembley. HHJ Stephen Davies held the landlord liable to replace the cladding under the lease covenants and fire safety obligations.

Mulalley & Co Limited v Sto Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 1552 (TCC)
A contractor that had refitted tower blocks with an unsafe external cladding system recovered a contribution from the system's supplier after Grenfell. Mr Justice Pepperall assessed the just and equitable contribution at 87.5 per cent and gave judgment for about 1.77 million pounds, enforced through a building liability order against the supplier's parent.

Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited & Ors v Ardmore Construction Limited (in Administration) & [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC)
A developer sought building liability orders to make the associated companies of an insolvent contractor answer for fire safety defects. Mr Justice Constable held it was just and equitable that each associated company be jointly and severally liable for the sums the insolvent contractor owed under an adjudicator's decision.

CR Construction (UK) Company Limited v Barclays Bank Plc [2026] EWHC 202 (TCC)
A contractor tried to stop a bank paying out under an on-demand performance bond that the employer had called for liquidated damages. HHJ Stephen Davies held that a bank can only be restrained where fraud is shown against it, and refused the injunction because no such case was made and the employer had not been joined.

Crestline Direct Finance LP v Insurance Company Euroins AD [2026] EWHC 423 (TCC)
A finance company claimed about 3.69 million pounds under a bond issued by an insurer, and applied to shut out the insurer's defences. Simon Lofthouse KC held the defences on assignment and the construction of the insolvency clause were not suitable for summary determination, dismissed the applications and sent the claim on towards trial.

David Alan Kyte v McLaren Automotive Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 1126 (TCC)
The owner of a McLaren sports car that caught fire sued the manufacturer and dealer years later, but pleaded his case inadequately. Mr Justice Eyre struck the claim out as not properly particularised.

Into Nominee One Limited & Anor v Study Group UK Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 1201 (TCC)
Landlords sought summary judgment on a substantial claim that turned on questions of construction. Roger ter Haar KC held the points of law were suitable for summary determination and decided them, leaving an amendment to increase the sum claimed for the consequential stage.

Lloyds Developments Limited v Accor Hotel Services UK Limited [2026] EWHC 1238 (TCC)
On a summary assessment of costs, the paying party objected that a junior fee earner's rate was above the guideline figure. Mrs Justice Jefford made a modest reduction for the junior's time but declined to cut the senior time spent supervising it.

Coal Pension Properties Limited v Mace Living Limited & Ors [2026] EWHC 1248 (TCC)
The court had to decide whether a claim form had been validly served. Roger ter Haar KC held the service was not valid, dismissed the claimant's application and granted the defendants the declarations they sought.

The New Lottery Company Limited & Anor v The Gambling Commission [2026] EWHC 1311 (TCC)
After the challenge to the Fourth National Lottery Licence award was dismissed, the court turned to costs. Mrs Justice Joanna Smith found the claimants' conduct highly unreasonable throughout and awarded indemnity costs for the whole proceedings.

Gunaratnam Kirupakaran v Mahomed Tehseen Ibrahim & Ors [2026] EWHC 1429 (TCC)
A claimant given a clear warning that his pleaded case was hopeless, and six months to fix it, still failed to set out a recognisable claim. Mrs Justice O'Farrell struck the claim out against every defendant and ordered him to pay their costs.

Lloyds Developments Limited v Accor Hotel Services UK Limited [2026] EWHC 1522 (TCC)
An insolvent claimant sought to have its former directors hand their mobile devices to an independent reviewer for disclosure. Mr Justice Constable dealt with the costs of that exercise, holding the defendant entitled to its costs against the claimant, with the directors ultimately answerable.

BLL v STI [2026] EWHC 1678 (TCC)
A gift-card business sought an urgent mandatory injunction against its Canadian software provider in support of arbitration. Mr Justice Constable held the case failed on urgency, on the high merits threshold for mandatory relief and on the adequacy of damages, and refused the injunction.

Julian Thirsk & Anor v Berkeley Homes (North East London) Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 215 (TCC)
With the parties unable to agree costs budgets, the court set the figures itself. Mr Roger ter Haar KC pared back the amounts claimed for solicitors and counsel to what he considered proportionate and reasonable for each phase.

CR Construction (UK) Limited v Barclays Bank PLC (Costs and Stay) [2026] EWHC 228 (TCC)
After refusing to injunct payment under a performance bond, the court dealt with costs and a request to stay its order pending appeal. HHJ Stephen Davies refused the stay, holding it would achieve nothing given the nature of the order.

Lloyds Developments Limited v Accor S.A [2026] EWHC 232 (TCC)
A claimant that had obtained an extension of time to serve a claim form on a French defendant lost it because it had approached the court on a false basis. Mr Justice Eyre set the extension aside, so the claim was served out of time and the court had no jurisdiction.

Thomas Barnes & Sons Plc (In Administration) v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2026] EWHC 24 (TCC)
A successful defendant sought its costs not from the insolvent claimant but from those who stood behind the litigation. HHJ Stephen Davies held it just to make a non-party costs order against the respondents for the outstanding balance of costs.

Baltimore Wharf SLP v Ballymore Properties Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 312 (TCC)
A defendant argued the whole dispute had already been compromised and sought to end it summarily. Mr Recorder Singer KC held there was no binding settlement and dismissed the applications for summary judgment and strike out.

GS Woodland Court GP 1 Limited & Anor v RGCM Limited & Ors [2026] EWHC 351 (TCC)
A claimant whose remedial scheme had been rejected by the Building Safety Regulator applied to adjourn the whole trial by a year. Mr Justice Constable refused, keeping the June 2026 date for liability and holding the scheme-dependent issues over to a later phase as the least imperfect option.

Kevin Demirci Properties Limited v Huw Griffiths Architects Limited [2026] EWHC 353 (TCC)
A claimant had pleaded a false factual allegation, and the defendant sought to strike out the claim and bring contempt proceedings. Mr Alan Bates dismissed both applications, allowing the claim to continue on a corrected basis.

UK Global Healthcare Limited v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2026] EWHC 561 (TCC)
The Department of Health sought summary judgment on a multi-million pound counterclaim and to strike out the supplier's claim in a medical supplies dispute. Mr Justice Constable held the issues were not suitable for summary determination and dismissed the application.

Município De Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 73 (TCC)
After the Stage 1 trial of the mass claim arising from the Fundao dam collapse in Brazil, the court dealt with costs and permission to appeal. Mrs Justice O Farrell ordered the defendants to pay costs with £43 million on account and interest, and refused permission to appeal.

Laing O'Rourke Delivery Limited v Shepperton Studios Limited [2026] EWHC 771 (TCC)
Following the Part 8 dispute over the validity of pay less notices, the court assessed the costs of those proceedings. Mr Simon Lofthouse KC fixed the assessed Part 8 costs at a total of just over 55,000 pounds.

MJS Projects (March) Limited V RPS Consulting Services Limited [2026] EWHC 884 (TCC)
After the claim over a container park was dismissed, the losing claimant argued the defendant should get no costs for refusing to mediate and changing its expert evidence. HHJ Kelly applied the usual order, refused indemnity costs and ordered £309,673.80 on account.

GMC Utilities Group Ltd v Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd [2026] EWHC 885 (TCC)
After a performance bond call was compromised by paying the sum into escrow, the parties disputed whether the subcontractor had commenced proceedings in time to keep the money there. Mr Simon Lofthouse KC held its Part 7 claim satisfied the agreement, so the escrow sum stayed in place while the dispute went to arbitration.

Belong (Construction) Limited v Seddon Construction Limited [2026] EWHC 1275 (TCC)
An employer used a Part 8 claim to overturn an adjudicator's reading of the extension-of-time clauses in a JCT contract. HHJ Stephen Davies held the adjudicator had read the words error, omission, negligence or default too narrowly, found for the employer and granted the declarations it sought.

Mace Construct Limited v Baltic Investment Holdings Limited [2026] EWHC 976 (TCC)
After an adjudicator wiped out an extension of time the employer's agent had granted on the Baltic Exchange refurbishment, the contractor used a Part 8 claim to establish the correct construction of the contract. Adrian Williamson KC granted most of the declarations Mace sought and declined two.