Gunaratnam Kirupakaran v Mahomed Tehseen Ibrahim and Others [2026] EWHC 1429 (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

Gunaratnam Kirupakaran v Mahomed Tehseen Ibrahim and Others

[2026] EWHC 1429 (TCC) | High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court (KBD)

Before Mrs Justice O'Farrell DBE | Heard 4 June 2026 | Handed down 11 June 2026

Interactive Process Flow | Strike-out of adjoining-owner and party-wall claims

Case Analysis Process Flow

0 of 7 nodes explored

1. Case Overview

Case: Gunaratnam Kirupakaran v Mahomed Tehseen Ibrahim and Others [2026] EWHC 1429 (TCC)
Court: High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court (KBD)
Judge: Mrs Justice O'Farrell DBE
Hearing Date: 4 June 2026
Judgment Date: 11 June 2026
Case No: HT-2025-000277

After structural works at 164 Croydon Road, the neighbouring property at number 166 cracked, moved and was partly demolished as dangerous. Its owner claimed about £1.4 million against individuals connected with the building owner, the contractor and both party-wall surveyors. Each defendant sought strike-out or summary judgment (paragraphs 1-15 and 71-76).

Central Legal Test: The Amended Particulars of Claim had to state material facts disclosing a reasonable legal claim under CPR 16.4 and comply with the earlier unless order. For summary judgment, each claim required a real prospect of success and a compelling reason for trial. The surveyor claims also required an arguable duty within their statutory quasi-judicial role (paragraphs 1 and 58-75).

Works and Damage

The adjoining development involved extensions and party-wall work. Damage increased from August 2024; both buildings were later considered unstable and number 166 was partly demolished (paragraphs 5-14).

Party Wall Awards

Two awards documented condition, repairs, underpinning, protection and £30,000 security, while disclaiming design responsibility by the surveyors (paragraphs 10-11 and 61-69).

2. Procedural History

Earlier Warning

A judge had warned in November 2025 that the pleaded claim was hopeless but allowed correction. Six months later the deficiencies remained (paragraph 73).

Multiple Applications

The first three defendants, contractor and both surveyors separately sought strike-out or summary judgment against the entire claim (paragraph 1).

3. Defendant's Position

The defendants said the pleading did not distinguish their roles or identify duties, breaches and causation. The surveyors relied on their limited dispute-resolution role, award disclaimers and absence of design, management or stop-work powers (paragraphs 58-70).

No Particularised Case

The amended pleading did not articulate legally recognisable facts against each individual defendant.

Surveyor Role

Party-wall surveyors were not designers or construction managers and did not control or carry out the damaging works (paragraphs 61-69).

4. Claimant's Position

The claimant relied on the defendants' knowledge of damage and warnings, alleged failures to stop or protect the works, Party Wall Act duties and the common-law duty test (paragraphs 58-69).

Knowledge and Intervention

He said warnings, site attendance and communications required those involved to intervene as damage progressed.

Surveyor Allegations

He alleged failures concerning security, risk identification, protective measures, CDM duties and suspension of work (paragraphs 60 and 69).

5. Court's Analysis

No Reasonable Pleading

The Amended Particulars did not comply with CPR 16.4 or the unless order and did not disclose a proper claim against any defendant (paragraph 71).

No Surveyor Duty as Pleaded

The statutory surveyors' quasi-judicial role did not include design responsibility, supervision or power to stop the work. The awards expressly reflected those limits (paragraphs 61-70).

No Real Prospect

No supporting evidence identified a potentially successful claim, novel legal issue or compelling reason for trial (paragraphs 71-72).

No Further Amendment

The claimant had already received a clear warning and extended opportunity. Continuing would waste costs and court time contrary to the overriding objective (paragraphs 73-74).

6. Decision and Outcome

Winner: The Defendants (The first to sixth defendants) succeeded.

Result: All applications to strike out or for summary judgment were granted. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendants' costs, with consequential terms to be settled or heard later (paragraphs 75-76). The Claimant (Gunaratnam Kirupakaran) did not succeed on this application.

Practical Effect: The £1.4 million claim ended without trial. Any rights under the Party Wall Awards did not rescue the unparticularised claims made against these defendants.

Entire Claim Disposed

Strike-out and summary judgment relief was granted for all defendants (paragraph 75(i)).

Costs

The claimant had to pay defendants' costs (paragraph 75(ii)).

7. Key Legal Principles and Practice Points

Role-specific Pleading

A multi-defendant claim must identify the duty, act, breach and causal case separately for each defendant.

Party-wall Surveyors

Their statutory dispute-resolution role does not itself impose design, execution, site-control or stop-work duties.

Final Opportunity

The court may end proceedings where a warned claimant fails to cure fundamental defects despite adequate time.

Practice Implications

For Claimants:
Distinguish building owner, director, employee, contractor, designer and each surveyor. Plead the legal basis and evidence against each before combining them in one damages claim.

For Defendants:
Use the appointment, award terms and actual scope of work to test alleged duties. Apply early where a claimant substitutes general involvement for a recognised duty.

General Practice Points:
Party-wall machinery allocates dispute-resolution functions. It does not make appointed surveyors guarantors of design or construction safety.

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.