Claim Struck Out After Long-Running Scaffolding Dispute

Holmes & Hills LLP construction solicitors was instructed by the Second Defendant (a scaffolding firm) in March 2025 in relation to ongoing disputes arising from earlier court proceedings brought by the Claimant.

Background to the Dispute

The Claimant commenced a claim against two Defendants alleging that scaffolding equipment had been removed and taken into the possession of the Defendants without consent. The Claimant sought either the return of the scaffolding equipment or, alternatively, payment of its value.

In February 2021, the court found that the Claimant was the owner of the scaffolding equipment and ordered that the Defendants either return the equipment or pay its value, although the court did not quantify that value.

As the Second Defendant was unable to return all of the scaffolding, it purchased and delivered replacement scaffolding equipment to the Claimant. The replacement equipment was procured using an itemised list prepared by the Second Defendant at the time the scaffolding was originally dismantled; the only contemporaneous record of what was removed.

Despite this, the Claimant maintained that the equipment delivered did not satisfy the judgment because it did not amount to the full quantity alleged to have been removed. It was at this point that Holmes & Hills was instructed on behalf of the Second Defendant to respond to the Claimant’s solicitors in relation to the satisfaction of the judgment.

Renewed Proceedings and Legal Strategy

After the involvement of Holmes & Hills in 2021, the Claimant appeared to have dropped the issue. However, in March 2025, four years after the original proceedings, the Claimant issued a fresh claim against both Defendants asserting that the replacement scaffolding did not match the quantity originally removed. The Claimant sought to rely on an architect’s speculative drawings and video footage purportedly showing the quantity of scaffolding on site.

Holmes & Hills LLP was instructed to advise on the renewed claim and to challenge the admissibility of the new evidence. We contended that the video footage ought to have been relied upon in the original proceedings and that the new claim amounted to an impermissible re-litigation of issues already decided.

The court listed a hearing for November 2025 to address key issues including:

1. Whether the Defendants had breached the original judgment;
2. Whether delivery of the replacement scaffolding satisfied that judgment;
3. Whether the Claimant’s application for discretionary relief was timely; and
4. Whether the Claimant could rely on the video evidence.

Successful Outcome

At the hearing in November 2025, the court struck out the Claimant’s claim, agreeing that it was a re-litigation of the original matter and that the original judgment had been satisfied by the provision of the replacement scaffolding. The Claimant was ordered to pay the costs of both Defendants.

Get Expert Legal Advice

Call 01206 593933 and speak to a specialist construction solicitor today.

Or send an email