One Hyde Park Limited v Laing O'Rourke Construction South Limited [2026] EWHC 155 (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

One Hyde Park Limited v Laing O'Rourke Construction South Limited

[2026] EWHC 155 (TCC) | High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Technology and Construction Court (KBD)

Before Mrs Justice Jefford DBE | Heard 27 February 2025 | Handed down 2 February 2026

Interactive Process Flow | Defective pipework, valves, joints and access cradle

Case Analysis Process Flow

0 of 7 nodes explored

1. Case Overview

Case: One Hyde Park Limited v Laing O'Rourke Construction South Limited [2026] EWHC 155 (TCC)
Court: High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Technology and Construction Court (KBD)
Judge: Mrs Justice Jefford DBE
Hearing Date: 27 February 2025
Judgment Date: 2 February 2026
Case No: HT-2021-000502

One Hyde Park Limited claimed under a 2010 collateral warranty given by Laing O'Rourke Construction South Limited in respect of the construction of One Hyde Park. The alleged defects concerned severe corrosion in chilled-water pipework, failed butterfly valves, leaking soldered joints and a defective pantograph cradle. Shortly before trial, the defendant withdrew after its parent ceased funding it and resolved to place it into creditors' voluntary liquidation. The court struck out the Defence but required the claimant to prove its case. It found the pleaded breaches, accepted the proposed remedial works and awarded the four sums assessed by the claimant's quantum expert (paragraphs 1-17, 32-38 and 67-111).

Central Legal Test: The court had to decide whether the claimant's unchallenged factual and expert evidence proved breach, causation, responsibility for repair, the reasonable remedial scheme and quantum. It also addressed how CPR 39.3 operates where a defendant does not attend trial, and whether the absent defendant's uncalled factual and expert reports had evidential status (paragraphs 15-31).

Parties and Representation

Claimant: One Hyde Park Limited, represented by Andrew Rigney KC and Charles Pimlott, instructed by Stephenson Harwood LLP.

Defendant: Laing O'Rourke Construction South Limited. The defendant did not attend and was not represented at trial.

Contractual Route

The defendant entered into a 2007 amended JCT Standard Form of Building Contract with Contractor's Design 1998 with the developer. Under a collateral warranty dated 8 September 2010, it warranted to One Hyde Park Limited that it had complied and would continue to comply with the main contract, including design, material and workmanship obligations (paragraphs 39-44).

Four Defect Claims

The claims concerned chilled-water pipework, butterfly valves, soldered joints and a pantograph cradle. The claimed remedial costs were £34,437,122.60, £313,753, £179,392 and £215,957.44 respectively (paragraphs 32-35 and 96-111).

2. Procedural History

Withdrawal Before Trial

The defendant had participated through evidence, expert meetings and the pre-trial review. On 12 February 2025 its solicitors said that it could no longer finance the defence and would not participate. Its shareholder then resolved to place it into creditors' voluntary liquidation (paragraphs 9-14).

Defence Struck Out

Under CPR 39.3(1)(c), the court exercised its discretion to strike out the Defence. The claimant did not seek default judgment and instead opened its case and called factual and expert evidence to prove liability and loss (paragraphs 15-22 and 31).

Evidence of the Absent Defendant

Uncalled factual witness statements had no evidential status under CPR 32.5. The court held that the defendant's expert reports were likewise not evidence where permission had been to call the experts and they were not called, although agreed matters verified by the claimant's experts could be considered (paragraphs 21-30).

3. Defendant's Position

Before withdrawal, the defendant had denied breach and causation and disputed the claimant's responsibility for parts of the pipework and its resulting loss. None of its factual or expert witnesses was called at trial (paragraphs 22-30 and 34).

Repair Responsibility

The defendant's pleaded position was that the claimant was not responsible for pipework serving individual apartments and therefore had not suffered the relevant loss (paragraphs 34 and 45-68).

Causation and Scope

The Defence had disputed the alleged installation breaches and causation for the pipe corrosion, valves and soldered joints, and had challenged aspects of the scope and duration of remedial works (paragraphs 75-87 and 97-109).

No Trial Evidence

Because the Defence was struck out and the defendant called no witnesses, its uncalled statements and reports did not prove those positions. The claimant still had to establish its case on its own evidence (paragraphs 17-31).

4. Claimant's Position

One Hyde Park Limited relied on its repairing obligations under the lease structure, detailed factual and expert evidence of systemic defects, and a quantum assessment of the reasonable cost of remedying them (paragraphs 32-38 and 45-111).

Responsibility for the System

The chilled-water installation was a single sealed recirculating system serving the property. The court held that it was a common service and that the claimant was responsible for maintaining and repairing it under the superior lease and underlease structure (paragraphs 45-67).

Systemic Workmanship Defects

The claimant's experts attributed the copper-pipe corrosion to gaps in the vapour barrier caused by defective installation of phenolic insulation. Corrosion was irreversible, widespread and likely to produce further leaks, requiring replacement of almost all affected pipework (paragraphs 69-87).

Other Defects and Quantum

Expert evidence supported manufacturing or workmanship defects in the butterfly valves and soldered joints. Liability for the pantograph cradle was admitted. The claimant relied on detailed remedial-cost assessments by its quantity-surveying expert (paragraphs 88-111).

5. Court's Analysis

Claimant Still Had to Prove Its Case

Striking out the Defence did not automatically establish the claim. The court tested whether the evidence called was sufficient, while recognising that its ability to test evidence was constrained by the defendant's absence (paragraphs 15-22 and 31-38).

Repairing Obligation Established

On the lease wording and the engineering evidence, the pipework formed part of one common-service system rather than installations serving apartments exclusively. The claimant therefore bore the repair loss. The court would also have accepted its alternative transferred-loss case if necessary (paragraphs 45-68).

Breach and Causation Proved

The unchallenged evidence proved systemic failures in the vapour barrier, defective valve manufacture or selection, defective soldering and the admitted cradle defect. Those matters breached the main contract and therefore the collateral warranty (paragraphs 69-82 and 97-111).

Remedial Scheme and Cost Accepted

The pipework corrosion was extensive and irreversible. The court accepted the proposed replacement programme, despite its expected duration of about 10.46 years, and accepted the quantum expert's revised assessments as careful, structured and independent (paragraphs 81-96).

6. Decision and Outcome

Winner: The Claimant (One Hyde Park Limited) succeeded.

Result: Judgment was entered for One Hyde Park Limited. The court awarded £34,437,122.60 for chilled-water pipework, £313,753 for butterfly valves, £179,392 for soldered joints and £215,957.44 for the pantograph cradle (paragraphs 96, 106, 109 and 111). The Defendant (Laing O'Rourke Construction South Limited) did not succeed on this application.

Practical Effect: The defendant was liable under the collateral warranty for the reasonable cost of the proven remedial works. The judgment also confirms that, where a defendant does not attend, striking out its defence does not relieve the claimant of proving the claim and uncalled reports do not automatically become trial evidence.

Pipework

The court awarded £34,437,122.60 for removal and replacement of the chilled-water pipework outside the excluded areas (paragraphs 80-96).

Valves and Joints

It awarded £313,753 for affected butterfly valves and £179,392 for future repair of defective soldered joints (paragraphs 97-109).

Pantograph Cradle

It awarded £215,957.44 for the admitted defect in the access cradle (paragraphs 110-111).

7. Key Legal Principles and Practice Points

Trial in a Defendant's Absence

CPR 39.3 permits the court to proceed and strike out a defence, but the claimant may still be required to prove each element of its case on admissible evidence (paragraphs 15-22).

Uncalled Evidence

A factual statement is not trial evidence where the witness is not called and it is not admitted as hearsay. In a substantial TCC trial, permission to call expert evidence does not make an uncalled report evidence without more (paragraphs 21-30).

Reasonable Remedial Cost

Where defective work causes pervasive and irreversible damage, a wholesale replacement scheme may be reasonable if supported by engineering evidence and a properly built-up quantum assessment (paragraphs 69-96).

Repair Responsibility

Contractual and lease wording must be applied to how a building service operates in practice. A pipe run within an apartment may remain part of a common service where it forms one central recirculating system (paragraphs 45-67).

Practice Implications

For Claimants:
If the defendant withdraws, retain a complete proof plan. Call the witnesses required to establish breach, causation, repair responsibility, scope and quantum. Do not assume that striking out the defence produces judgment without proof. For defects claims, connect each contractual obligation to inspection findings and the proposed remedy.

For Defendants:
Withdrawal shortly before trial may lead to the defence being struck out and the claimant's properly supported evidence being accepted. If a party cannot attend, address the status of factual and expert material formally and consider any hearsay or other application needed to place evidence before the court.

General Practice Points:
Orders for expert evidence should state whether reports may be relied on without oral evidence. Lease-based loss claims should map the physical operation of building systems to the precise repairing covenants. Quantum evidence should show the scope, sequence, duration, rates, risk and contingency behind the remedial cost.

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.