Kirupakaran v Ibrahim – Drawing the Line on Pleading and Party Wall Surveyors
In Kirupakaran v Ibrahim & Ors [2026] EWHC 1429 (TCC), the Technology and Construction Court considered applications by six defendants to strike out a claim, or alternatively obtain summary judgment, arising out of alleged structural damage caused to an adjoining property during redevelopment works. Although the underlying facts concerned significant damage to neighbouring premises, the judgment ultimately turned on fundamental principles of civil procedure and serves as a useful reminder of the importance of properly pleaded claims. It also provides valuable guidance on the scope of duties owed by company directors, contractors and party wall surveyors in the context of construction disputes.
The claimant owned a mixed-use property adjoining a redevelopment site in Croydon. During extensive structural works to the neighbouring property, severe cracking and structural movement developed within the claimant’s building. Despite monitoring, the preparation of Party Wall Awards and proposed remedial measures, the condition of the property continued to deteriorate until the local authority determined that the building was unsafe and ordered its partial demolition. The claimant subsequently commenced proceedings seeking damages of approximately £1.5 million against six defendants, including the directors of the development company, an employee acting as contract administrator, the main contractor, and both appointed party wall surveyors.
Each defendant applied to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgment on the basis that the claimant’s pleadings disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and demonstrated no realistic prospect of success. Mrs Justice O’Farrell agreed, granting all of the applications.
The Court’s Decision
The central issue before the court was whether the claimant had pleaded a legally recognisable cause of action against each of the defendants. Mrs Justice O’Farrell held that the Amended Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4, which requires a claimant to provide a concise statement of the facts relied upon in support of each cause of action. Despite previously being given an opportunity to amend his pleadings following an Unless Order, the claimant had still failed to identify the duties allegedly owed by each defendant, the conduct said to constitute a breach of those duties, how the alleged breaches caused the damage complained of, or the basis upon which each defendant was said to be liable.
The court concluded that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and that the claimant had no real prospect of succeeding against any of the defendants. Having already afforded the claimant an opportunity to rectify the deficiencies, the court held that permitting the proceedings to continue would be contrary to the overriding objective, resulting only in unnecessary expense and wasted court resources.
Key Legal Principles
The judgment provides a useful restatement of the fundamental requirements for effective pleadings. Allegations of negligence or breach of statutory duty must be supported by sufficient factual detail to enable each defendant to understand the case they are required to answer. It is not enough to allege generally that defendants owed statutory, common law or professional duties. A claimant must identify the nature and scope of the duty owed, explain how it was breached, establish the causal connection between the alleged breach and the loss suffered, and particularise the losses claimed. Without those essential components, defendants are unable to investigate the allegations properly, obtain appropriate witness or expert evidence, or prepare a meaningful defence.
The decision also reinforces the importance of distinguishing between multiple defendants. Construction disputes frequently involve developers, directors, contractors, consultants and surveyors, each performing different functions and owing different legal obligations. The court made clear that generic allegations directed collectively at “the defendants” will rarely satisfy the Civil Procedure Rules. Instead, a separate and coherent case must be pleaded against each individual defendant.
In relation to the directors of the development company, the court reaffirmed the well-established principle that directors are not personally liable simply because they hold office within a company. Liability ordinarily rests with the corporate entity unless there is a recognised legal basis for piercing the corporate veil or establishing that the director assumed an independent personal duty of care. Neither had been pleaded in this case.
The court similarly recognised that, whilst contractors may owe duties to adjoining landowners where construction activities cause damage to neighbouring property, claimants must still identify the specific construction activities complained of, explain why those activities fell below the applicable standard of care, and establish causation. Evidence suggesting that structural failures occurred cannot compensate for the absence of a properly pleaded legal claim.
The judgment is also noteworthy for its discussion of party wall surveyors. Reaffirming previous authorities, the court confirmed that surveyors appointed under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 perform a quasi-judicial dispute resolution function rather than acting as designers, engineers or construction supervisors. They do not ordinarily assume responsibility for the design or execution of construction works, nor do they generally owe common law duties in respect of construction defects simply by virtue of their appointment under the Act. The claimant’s allegations that the surveyors should have halted the works or assumed responsibilities under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 were rejected, particularly where the Party Wall Awards expressly disclaimed any design responsibility.
Finally, the judgment serves as a reminder that litigants in person remain subject to the same procedural requirements as represented parties. Whilst the courts will take reasonable steps to ensure unrepresented litigants can participate fully in proceedings, compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules remains mandatory.
Practical Implications
Although the case arose from serious structural damage to an adjoining property, its wider significance lies in the court’s reaffirmation of fundamental procedural principles. Successful construction claims require more than evidence of defective works or resulting damage. They must be supported by properly particularised pleadings that identify the relevant legal duties, the factual basis of each alleged breach, the causal link to the losses claimed, and the specific basis upon which each defendant is said to be liable.
The judgment also provides reassurance to construction professionals regarding the limits of liability. Company directors will not readily be held personally responsible for the acts of their companies, while party wall surveyors continue to benefit from the established principle that their statutory role is one of impartial dispute resolution rather than design or construction management. For practitioners involved in drafting claims and defences, the decision serves as a timely reminder that careful pleading remains fundamental to successful construction litigation.
How CCC Can Help
Construction disputes frequently involve multiple parties with overlapping contractual, statutory and common law responsibilities. Identifying the correct defendants, establishing the legal duties owed by each party, and preparing properly particularised claims or defences are critical to achieving a successful outcome.
At Contract & Construction Consultants (CCC), we advise employers, contractors, subcontractors, developers and construction professionals on all aspects of construction disputes. Whether acting in adjudication or other forms of dispute resolution, our team has extensive experience in analysing complex factual and legal issues, preparing robust claims and defences, and developing strategies that place our clients in the strongest possible position from the outset of a dispute.
