{"id":537387,"date":"2026-02-03T09:48:47","date_gmt":"2026-02-03T09:48:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.constructionnews.co.uk\/?p=537387"},"modified":"2026-02-03T15:20:58","modified_gmt":"2026-02-03T15:20:58","slug":"luxury-flats-owner-wins-35m-high-court-claim-against-laing-orourke","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.constructionnews.co.uk\/legal\/luxury-flats-owner-wins-35m-high-court-claim-against-laing-orourke-03-02-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Luxury flats owner wins \u00a335m High Court claim against Laing O’Rourke"},"content":{"rendered":"

The High Court has awarded \u00a335m in damages to the freeholder of a high-end London development after a Laing O\u2019Rourke subsidiary withdrew from the case, leaving the trial to proceed without a defence.<\/p>\n

In a judgment handed down remotely on 2 February 2026, Mrs Justice Jefford ruled that Laing O\u2019Rourke<\/a> Construction South was responsible for serious defects at One Hyde Park, a luxury residential complex in Knightsbridge.<\/p>\n

In her written judgment, Jefford agreed with the One Hyde Park Ltd (OHP) barrister\u2019s description of Laing O\u2019Rourke\u2019s decision to walk away before the trial as \u201ccommercially amoral\u201d.<\/p>\n

OHP, the freeholder of its namesake development, launched a claim against Laing O\u2019Rourke Construction South in December 2021 after years of unsuccessful negotiations regarding serious defects at the property.<\/p>\n

The defects included the discovery in 2014 of severe corrosion of the chilled water pipework.<\/p>\n

This issue was later shown to be pervasive, with some sections corroded to 87 per cent of the wall thickness.<\/p>\n

Other defects included the failure of numerous butterfly valves, leaking soldered joints, and a non-functional pantograph cradle for facade cleaning, which had not operated correctly since the development achieved practical completion in 2011.<\/p>\n

OHP argued that these defects, which Laing O\u2019Rourke did not dispute existed, were a direct result of Laing O\u2019Rourke\u2019s inadequate workmanship and failure to install the required vapour\u2011barrier insulation.<\/p>\n

This, OHP claimed, constituted a breach of the contractual obligations to deliver work of \u201creasonable skill, care and diligence\u201d and of \u201csatisfactory quality\u201d.<\/p>\n

Laing O\u2019Rourke argued that the defects were either caused by external factors or fell outside the scope of its contractual obligations.<\/p>\n

Both parties exchanged expert reports and produced joint statements on the technical facts.<\/p>\n

Because the defects caused substantial loss and remedial work costs, OHP decided to begin legal proceedings rather than continue informal settlement talks with Laing O\u2019Rourke. OHP originally sought \u00a353.6m in damages.<\/p>\n

Defence withdrawal<\/h3>\n

Laing O\u2019Rourke Construction South initially participated in the proceedings and defended its case.<\/p>\n

However, in February 2025, Laing O\u2019Rourke Construction South\u2019s solicitors at Pinsent Masons wrote to the court and OHP informing them that the company was entering creditors\u2019 voluntary liquidation and would not continue to fund the litigation.<\/p>\n

In a statement at the time, OHP said it was \u201cextremely disappointing\u201d that after a decade attempting to find a resolution to the dispute, \u201cLaing O\u2019Rourke, a business with revenue of \u00a34bn, appears to have stepped away from its subsidiary days before trial\u201d.<\/p>\n

In yesterday\u2019s ruling, the judge agreed with OHP\u2019s criticism of Laing O\u2019Rourke for \u201cpull[ing] the plug\u201d on its subsidiary.<\/p>\n

Jefford said: \u201cMr Rigney [OHP\u2019s barrister] submitted that the only credible reason for [Laing O\u2019Rourke] group withdrawing support from [Laing O\u2019Rourke Construction South Ltd] was that it had formed the view that OHP was likely to succeed and obtain a substantial award of damages and that Laing O\u2019Rourke plc, in my words not his, had decided to pull the plug on the defendant rather than honour its contractual obligations.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe described such conduct as commercially amoral and I agree, not least against the background of protracted negotiations and full participation in the litigation virtually to the door of the court.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jefford struck out Laing O\u2019Rourke\u2019s defence. According to civil procedure rules, the court can dismiss the defence or counterclaim prepared by a defendant if they choose not to appear in court.<\/p>\n

This step placed the onus on OHP to prove its case.<\/p>\n

The judge accepted the unchallenged expert evidence and OHP\u2019s cost calculations, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to establish liability and quantify damages.<\/p>\n

The judgment awards, totalling just over \u00a335m, include:<\/p>\n