Global claims and 'John Doyle v Laing Management' - Good English law? Good English practice?

Jeremy Winter

July 2007

A paper given to meetings of the Society of Construction Law in London on 6th March and Birmingham on 7th June 2007.

The Scottish cases of John Doyle v Laing Management from 2002 and 2004 have been seen as opening the door further to global claims. But is this correct and, if so, should it be encouraged? Jeremy Winter takes the view that the judges made unnecessarily wide statements and that these are far too accepting of global claims. Their approach does not encourage proper record-keeping on projects, ready for potential claims, and risks reversing the burden of proof and creating unnecessary complications of apportionment of claims. He concludes that the John Doyle approach should not be followed in English law.

Introduction - The John Doyle decisions - Apparent encouragement of global claims - John Doyle under English law - U.S. law - Will global claims die out? - Apportionment: the practicalities - When to decide the global claim issue? - Burden of proof - Balancing the parties' interests - Conclusions.

The author: Jeremy Winter is a Solicitor Advocate and Partner with Baker & McKenzie LLP, London.

Text 18 pages.