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
Kevin Demirci Properties Limited v Huw Griffiths Architects Limited
[2026] EWHC 353 (TCC) | High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court (KBD)
Before Mr Alan Bates, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court | Heard 18 and 19 November 2025 | Handed down 19 February 2026
Interactive Process Flow | False statement of truth, strike-out, amendment and choice of expert
Case Analysis Process Flow
0 of 7 nodes explored
1. Case Overview
+
Case: Kevin Demirci Properties Limited v Huw Griffiths Architects Limited [2026] EWHC 353 (TCC)
Court: High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court (KBD)
Judge: Mr Alan Bates, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court
Hearing Date: 18 and 19 November 2025
Judgment Date: 19 February 2026
Case No: HT-2021-000086

The architect sought strike-out after the claimant's Particulars falsely alleged an agreed joint venture and used that allegation to support loss exceeding £13.5 million. It also sought permission to bring contempt proceedings against the claimant's director and argued there was no contractual privity. The claimant sought extensive amendment and freedom to instruct a different architect expert (paragraphs 1-10 and 71-81).

Central Legal Test: The court had to respond proportionately to improper false pleading, distinguish responsibility for the statement of truth, decide whether an arguable cause of action remained, apply limitation and discretion to amendments, and determine whether an unnamed expert permission restricted the party's later selection (paragraphs 1-7 and 71-81).
Professional Claim
+
The claim concerned allegedly incompetent architecture and planning services for proposed student accommodation in Swansea, with claimed lost profit or chance and wasted cost (paragraphs 8-10).
False Allegation
+
A direct-access barrister signed the statement of truth for a pleading asserting a joint venture that the claimant knew had not been agreed (paragraphs 1-4 and 11-12).
2. Procedural History
+
Applications
+
The defendant sought strike-out, contempt permission and reliance on lack of privity. The claimant sought amendment and a different expert (paragraphs 4-7).
Regulatory Referral
+
The written reasons recorded concerns about the barrister's conduct for consideration by the Bar Standards Board, without binding findings against the non-party barrister (paragraph 7).
3. Defendant's Position
+

The architect said a knowingly false, materially inflated pleading justified strike-out or contempt, the contract was with Mr Demirci personally, and late amendments and expert replacement should be refused.

Abuse and Truth
+
It relied on the false joint-venture allegation and statement of truth as grave interference with justice.
Privity and New Claims
+
It said the company had no contract and that amendments introduced time-barred new design and loss-of-chance causes of action (paragraphs 5 and 71-75).
4. Claimant's Position
+

The claimant accepted correction was required, maintained an arguable professional-negligence case, sought a properly particularised amended pleading and said existing expert permission did not name or lock in its former architect.

Substantive Justice
+
It said strike-out would prevent resolution of the real architecture claim and that costs could protect the defendant from amendment prejudice.
Expert Choice
+
It wished to use an architect with experience suited to purpose-built student accommodation (paragraphs 76-79).
5. Court's Analysis
+
Proportionate Response
+
The false pleading was serious, but the circumstances did not justify ending the whole claim or permitting contempt proceedings against the director. Regulatory concerns about the signing barrister were separate (paragraphs 1-7 and 80).
Amendments Related to Existing Facts
+
The design criticisms and loss-of-chance clarification arose from substantially the same existing facts and did not create impermissible new time-barred claims (paragraphs 71-73).
Justice Favoured Amendment
+
Refusal would probably be terminal; the case remained relatively early and costs could materially protect the defendant. All amendments were allowed despite delay and some imperfect drafting (paragraphs 74-75).
No Permission Needed to Change Expert
+
The prior order authorised architecture evidence but did not name an expert, so the claimant remained free to select another. In any event, permission would have been granted and the earlier report was already available (paragraphs 76-79).
6. Decision and Outcome
+
Winner: The Claimant on the applications (Kevin Demirci Properties Limited) succeeded.

Result: Strike-out and contempt-permission applications were dismissed. The claimant could file the amended Particulars and select an architect expert other than the one previously consulted. Further case-management directions were invited (paragraphs 80-81). The Defendant and Applicant (Huw Griffiths Architects Limited) did not succeed on this application.

Practical Effect: The professional-negligence claim continued on a corrected and expanded pleading. The false statement remained a serious conduct matter potentially relevant to costs and professional regulation.
Claim Preserved
+
The strike-out application failed (paragraph 80).
Amendment Allowed
+
The full proposed amended pleading was permitted (paragraphs 74-75 and 80).
Expert Selection
+
The claimant could choose a different architect expert (paragraphs 76-80).
7. Key Legal Principles and Practice Points
+
False Statements
+
A knowingly false statement of case is grave misconduct, but the remedy must be proportionate to responsibility, prejudice and the ability to try the real dispute.
Amendment After Limitation
+
New particulars or labels may be allowed where any new cause arises from substantially the same facts already in issue.
Expert Permission
+
Permission for evidence in a discipline does not lock a party to an unnamed expert. Expert-shopping controls remain relevant where a change requires permission.
Practice Implications
+
For Claimants:
Verify every pleaded fact personally before signing or authorising a statement of truth. Correct a discovered error immediately and explain its origin with evidence.
For Defendants:
Separate sanctions for false pleading from the viability of the underlying cause. Use costs, disclosure and regulatory routes where full strike-out would be disproportionate.
General Practice Points:
Statements of truth are substantive safeguards. Direct-access arrangements do not reduce the duty to test instructions and avoid pleading a fact known to be false.
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.
This is a module from the Society of Construction Claims Specialists International's Construction Claims and Contracts Certification Programmes.
sccsinternational.org