Construction disputes involving defective work often turn on one simple question: can the party bringing the claim actually identify what went wrong, who caused it, and how it caused the loss being claimed?
That issue was recently considered by the Technology and Construction Court in Kyte v McLaren Automotive Ltd [2026] EWHC 1126 (TCC). Although the case concerned a luxury vehicle fire rather than a construction project, the judgment contains several important reminders which are highly relevant to construction defect claims, professional negligence disputes and adjudication preparation.
The case is particularly relevant for contractors, subcontractors, consultants and employers pursuing defect claims years after practical completion, especially where there are allegations of poor workmanship, defective installation, inadequate inspection or unsafe systems.
Background
The claimant alleged that a McLaren vehicle had caught fire because of defects arising from rebuild, servicing and maintenance works carried out by the defendants. The claimant advanced various allegations including improperly fitted parts, faults within fluid systems, inadequate inspections and failures to ensure the vehicle was safe after works had been completed. However, the court ultimately struck out the claim in its entirety because the pleadings failed properly to identify the alleged defects, the specific breaches relied upon, and the causal link between those breaches and the fire itself.
What makes the judgment particularly significant from a construction perspective is the court’s detailed analysis of what is required to properly plead and establish a technical defect claim.
Identifying the Defect Is Essential
A recurring issue in construction disputes is that parties often rely on broad allegations such as “the works were defective”, “the contractor failed to exercise reasonable skill and care”, or “the installation was not fit for purpose”, without identifying the actual defect mechanism or the specific act or omission said to have caused the problem. The court made clear that this is not sufficient.
The court reaffirmed that it is not enough simply to recite contractual obligations in negative form. A claimant must identify the actual defect being relied upon, explain the alleged breach of contract or negligent act, and set out how that breach caused the damage complained of. Generalised allegations and speculation are not enough.
That principle will resonate strongly within construction disputes. It is common to see claims asserting failures in waterproofing systems, cladding interfaces, drainage installations, M&E systems or structural elements without properly identifying the precise defect, where the defect exists, when it arose or how it caused the resulting loss.
You Cannot Plead First and Investigate Later
The judgment also serves as a warning against what the court described as “Micawberism”, effectively pursuing an inadequately pleaded claim in the hope that disclosure or expert investigations will later reveal a viable case. The court confirmed that disclosure is not intended to allow parties to identify the factual basis of a claim that has not already been properly pleaded. The claim itself must already be sufficiently particularised before disclosure takes place.
That point is particularly important in construction adjudications and defect disputes where parties sometimes commence proceedings before undertaking a sufficiently robust technical investigation. Whilst parties do not need perfect evidence at the outset, there still needs to be a properly articulated factual and technical basis for the claim being advanced.
Establishing Causation Remains Critical
Another important aspect of the judgment concerns causation. In many construction disputes there may be multiple possible causes of a defect or failure. For example, water ingress may potentially arise from roofing defects, façade defects, design coordination failures, maintenance issues or workmanship problems. The court accepted that claimants are entitled to plead alternative causes. However, they must still link each alleged cause to a specific breach or negligent act attributable to the defendant and plead how that breach caused the loss claimed.
The court also rejected arguments that a more relaxed approach should apply simply because evidence had been destroyed or because there was an imbalance of technical knowledge between the parties. In construction disputes, employers and building owners will often argue that contractors or specialist subcontractors possess superior technical information or design knowledge. However, the court confirmed that such an imbalance does not justify departing from the normal requirements for properly pleading and proving the alleged defect and breach.
The Limits of Res Ipsa Loquitur
Equally important was the court’s treatment of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The claimant argued that the fire itself was evidence of negligence. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the doctrine does not remove the need to identify the relevant breach and will only assist where the circumstances are such that the event would not ordinarily have occurred without negligence and the relevant object was under the defendant’s sole control at the material time. In construction terms, the mere fact that a building element failed, water ingress occurred, or cracking developed does not automatically establish negligence or breach of contract.
Key Takeaways for Construction Defect Claims
The practical lesson from this case is straightforward but important. Construction defect claims require detailed technical investigation and careful pleading from the outset. Parties should ensure that they can identify:
- the specific defect being alleged;
- the relevant contractual or tortious obligation;
- the specific act or omission constituting breach;
- the causal connection between that breach and the loss suffered; and
- the evidence supporting the claim.
Simply asserting that works were defective or unsafe will rarely be enough, particularly in technically complex disputes.
The judgment also highlights the importance of contemporaneous records, inspections, testing evidence and properly scoped expert investigations. The stronger the technical evidence identifying the defect mechanism and causal pathway, the more robust the factual and technical basis for the claim will be.
How CCC Can Help
At Contract & Construction Consultants, we regularly assist contractors, subcontractors and employers with defect investigations, technical claim preparation, contractual entitlement analysis and dispute resolution strategy. Early identification of defects, causation and evidential gaps is often critical to the success or failure of a claim, particularly where proceedings may arise years after completion of the works.
