CR Construction (UK) Limited v Barclays Bank PLC, with Northern Gateway (FEC) No. 7 Limited intervening [2026] EWHC 228 (TCC)

SCCSI

(Providing Elite Certification Programmes to Construction Professionals Since 2009)

Explore Our Construction Claims and Contracts Certification Programmes

Presented by

Society of Construction Claims
Specialists International

sccsinternational.org

CR Construction (UK) Limited v Barclays Bank PLC, with Northern Gateway (FEC) No. 7 Limited intervening

[2026] EWHC 228 (TCC) | High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts in Manchester, Technology and Construction Court

Before HHJ Stephen Davies, sitting as a High Court Judge | Heard 4 February 2026 | Handed down 4 February 2026

Interactive Process Flow | Costs and stay after refusal of an injunction against bond payment

Case Analysis Process Flow

0 of 7 nodes explored

1. Case Overview

Case: CR Construction (UK) Limited v Barclays Bank PLC, with Northern Gateway (FEC) No. 7 Limited intervening [2026] EWHC 228 (TCC)
Court: High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts in Manchester, Technology and Construction Court
Judge: HHJ Stephen Davies, sitting as a High Court Judge
Hearing Date: 4 February 2026
Judgment Date: 4 February 2026
Case No: HT-2026-MAN-000003

After refusing CR Construction's injunction against Barclays in [2026] EWHC 202 (TCC), the court decided whether the employer intervener should recover costs, summarily assessed the bank's and employer's costs, and considered a stay pending appeal (paragraphs 1-5 and 33-43).

Central Legal Test: An intervener's separate costs depended on whether its distinct interest and contribution justified separate representation rather than duplicating the defendant. Summary assessment required reasonable and proportionate costs. A stay could not turn refusal of an injunction into temporary injunctive relief (paragraphs 1-5 and 36-43).

Substantive Result

The underlying injunction against the bank's payment under the security instrument had been refused in the substantive judgment (paragraphs 1 and 40-43).

Intervener's Interest

Northern Gateway, as employer and beneficiary, faced the direct financial effect of any injunction and had interests beyond the issuing bank's position (paragraphs 36-39).

2. Procedural History

Consequential Issues

The court dealt immediately with costs of the injunction application and the contractor's request for a stay pending appeal.

Summary Assessment

Updated schedules included the reserved judgment and consequential hearing work (paragraphs 33-39).

3. Defendant's Position

Barclays sought its costs as successful respondent. The employer sought separate costs because the injunction directly affected its entitlement and required protection of underlying interests.

Bank Costs

The bank relied on the continuing correspondence, contested interim application and listing history to justify specialist legal costs (paragraphs 33-35).

Employer Costs

The employer relied on its direct financial exposure and need for counsel able to address merits beyond the bank's position (paragraphs 36-39).

4. Claimant's Position

CR Construction disputed the intervener's separate recovery and sought a short stay while pursuing permission to appeal.

Duplication

It said the employer's work overlapped with the bank and should not generate a full second set of costs.

Stay

It sought to hold the position for seven days pending an appeal application (paragraphs 40-43).

5. Court's Analysis

Bank Costs Reasonable

Specialist Manchester representation and overall work fell within a reasonable bracket, subject to a modest reduction. Costs were assessed at £75,000 plus VAT (paragraphs 33-35).

Employer Entitled

Separate representation was justified by the employer's direct financial interest and the need to address matters not covered by the bank, but not as a full second defendant from the start (paragraphs 36-39).

Equal Capped Recovery

The employer's £138,000 schedule was reduced to £75,000, matching the bank and reflecting overlap and its shorter involvement (paragraphs 36-39).

Stay Refused

Staying an order that merely refused an injunction would achieve nothing and could not impose the refused restraint indirectly. No separate interim basis or material prejudice justified relief (paragraphs 40-43).

6. Decision and Outcome

Winner: The Defendant and Intervener (Barclays Bank PLC and Northern Gateway (FEC) No. 7 Limited) succeeded.

Result: CR Construction had to pay £75,000 plus VAT to Barclays and £75,000 to Northern Gateway. The application for a stay pending appeal was refused (paragraphs 35, 39 and 40-43). The Claimant and Applicant (CR Construction (UK) Limited) did not succeed on this application.

Practical Effect: The bank remained free to pay the beneficiary after refusal of the injunction, and both successful participants recovered controlled costs.

Bank

£75,000 plus VAT summarily assessed (paragraph 35).

Employer

£75,000 summarily assessed, with no VAT claimed (paragraph 39).

No Stay

The refusal of injunctive relief remained effective pending any appeal attempt (paragraphs 40-43).

7. Key Legal Principles and Practice Points

Intervener Costs

A direct, separately represented interest may justify costs where the intervener adds matters the defendant cannot adequately cover.

Avoid Duplication

Recoverable intervener costs should reflect targeted participation, not treatment as an additional defendant throughout.

Stay of Refusal

A stay cannot convert refusal of an injunction into the same injunction pending appeal.

Practice Implications

For Claimants:
When joining a beneficiary, anticipate a separate costs exposure if its direct interest and evidence differ from the bank's. Address any interim appellate relief by its proper legal test.

For Defendants:
Coordinate bank and beneficiary submissions, identify distinct issues, and avoid duplicate factual or legal work.

General Practice Points:
A successful intervener may recover costs, but the court will reduce a schedule that treats limited participation as a full parallel defence.

Legal Disclaimer

This interactive process flow is provided for educational and professional development purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content reflects interpretations and analyses that may not apply to specific circumstances. Contract interpretation depends on specific wording, jurisdiction, and factual context. Always consult qualified legal professionals before making decisions based on this content. SCCSI and its contributors accept no liability for reliance on this material.