A construction dispute involving United Living (South) Limited and several companies has highlighted the importance of precisely defining the scope of settlement agreements and the circumstances in which later proceedings may be treated as an abuse of process.
What was the dispute about?
In United Living (South) Limited v Dovista UK Limited & Ors [2026] EWHC 2676 (TCC), Mr Justice Eyre considered an application brought by Hawkins Brown Limited, the third defendant, seeking summary judgment and the striking out of claims pursued by United Living.
The dispute arose from construction works and alleged defects associated with a property development. United Living had previously been involved in proceedings concerning liability for the costs of certain elements of the works. Those earlier proceedings were resolved through a settlement agreement.
United Living subsequently brought further proceedings involving claims connected with the project, including allegations relating to the Velfac window system, the Deed of Appointment, negligence and alleged breaches of statutory duties.
Hawkins Brown argued that the claims should not be allowed to continue because they had already been compromised by the earlier settlement or, alternatively, should be barred as an estoppel or an abuse of process.
What did the settlement agreement cover?
A central issue was whether the settlement agreement released all claims arising out of the wider development or only those claims that were actually in dispute in the earlier proceedings.
Mr Justice Eyre concluded that the agreement was limited to the claims in the previous proceedings that remained in issue when the settlement was reached.
The judge examined the definition of the disputed matters in the agreement, the wording of the release provisions and the agreement as a whole. He found that the relevant provisions identified a particular dispute and the claims being released, rather than providing a general release of every possible claim between the parties.
The court emphasised that commercial common sense could not be used to disregard the language chosen by the parties. Where parties intend to settle wider or unknown claims, they can use clear wording to achieve that result.
The agreement settled the particular claims in issue in the earlier proceedings, rather than every potential claim connected with the project.
The court also noted that a claim relating to the Velfac system had been abandoned by the time the particulars of claim were served in the previous proceedings. It was therefore outside the definition of the dispute settled by the agreement.
Why did the estoppel argument fail?
Hawkins Brown also argued that United Living was estopped from pursuing the later claims. It contended that United Living’s conduct in the earlier proceedings and its entry into the settlement agreement had represented that all relevant claims had been resolved.
The judge rejected the application for summary judgment on this ground.
One difficulty was that the alleged representation had not been adequately particularised. The court was not satisfied that Hawkins Brown had clearly identified whether the representation was express or implied or precisely what had been represented.
The judge also explained that entering into an agreement settling particular claims could not, without more, amount to a representation that other claims outside the agreement had also been settled.
The settlement agreement contained an entire agreement provision. Hawkins Brown had not explained how it could overcome that provision to establish that the agreement had a wider effect than its actual terms.
Mr Justice Eyre concluded that the estoppel argument did not justify summary judgment. He also declined to direct a preliminary hearing on the issue, considering that the expense and disruption would not be justified given the poor prospects of the argument.
What is the legal test for abuse of process?
The third defendant’s principal argument was that the later proceedings amounted to an abuse of process because United Living could and should have pursued the relevant claims during the earlier litigation.
The court considered the principles established in Henderson v Henderson, as explained by the House of Lords in Johnson v Gore Wood & Co.
The judge adopted guidance from Dexter Ltd v Vlieland-Boddy, which makes clear that the fact a matter could have been raised in earlier proceedings does not automatically mean that bringing a later claim is abusive.
The court must instead undertake a broad, merits-based assessment of all the circumstances. Relevant considerations include whether the claimant could and should have raised the matter earlier and whether the later proceedings involve unjust harassment or oppression of the other party.
The judgment also considered the guidance in Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group plc, which emphasises the importance of informing the court about connected claims during ongoing complex litigation.
Why were the new proceedings not abusive?
Mr Justice Eyre concluded that the later proceedings did not amount to an abuse of process in relation to Hawkins Brown.
An important factor was that the claims being pursued in the current proceedings were only potential claims at the time of the earlier mediation and settlement. Further investigations and consideration were required before United Living could decide whether to pursue them.
The court accepted that United Living needed to undertake additional investigations before it could properly determine the nature and extent of the potential claims.
The judge also noted that the current proceedings involved other defendants who had not been parties to the earlier proceedings. In those circumstances, United Living was not required to seek directions from the court in the previous proceedings about a speculative claim that had not yet been fully investigated.
The court distinguished the circumstances from those in which a party deliberately withholds a developed claim or conducts litigation in a way that causes unfairness or oppression to another party.
Although the judge considered the failure to disclose the potential claim, he concluded that it did not make the current proceedings abusive.
What did the court decide?
The court dismissed Hawkins Brown’s application. Mr Justice Eyre found that the settlement agreement did not compromise the claims being advanced in the current proceedings, the estoppel argument did not justify summary judgment, and the later proceedings did not amount to an abuse of process.
- Earlier proceedings: United Living pursued claims concerning elements of construction works.
- Settlement: The parties entered into an agreement resolving the particular dispute then in issue.
- Further investigations: United Living investigated potential additional claims, including matters relating to the Velfac system.
- Current proceedings: United Living brought further claims involving additional defendants.
- 3 November 2026: The High Court dismissed Hawkins Brown’s application in [2026] EWHC 2676 (TCC).
The decision concerned the application to dispose of the claims at this stage. It did not determine the ultimate liability of the defendants for the underlying construction allegations.
What does the judgment mean for commercial parties?
The judgment provides a useful reminder that settlement agreements must be interpreted by reference to their actual wording and the specific disputes they are intended to resolve.
For businesses and their legal advisers, several practical points emerge:
- Define the scope of settlement carefully: Parties seeking to resolve unknown or wider claims should ensure that the agreement uses sufficiently clear language.
- Identify the claims being released: The definition of the dispute and the release provisions should work together to avoid uncertainty.
- Investigate potential claims: A party may need further information before deciding whether to pursue additional proceedings.
- Do not assume later proceedings are automatically abusive: The court will consider the full circumstances rather than simply asking whether a claim could have been brought earlier.
- Particularise estoppel arguments: A party relying on an alleged representation should identify its nature and content clearly.
For solicitors advising on commercial settlements and construction disputes, the decision underlines the importance of precise drafting, careful litigation strategy and a fact-sensitive approach to applications based on abuse of process.
Frequently asked questions
What was the case United Living v Dovista about?
The case concerned whether claims brought by United Living in later proceedings had already been resolved by an earlier settlement agreement or should be barred as an estoppel or an abuse of process.
What did the High Court decide?
Mr Justice Eyre dismissed Hawkins Brown’s application for summary judgment and to strike out the claims. The court found that the settlement agreement covered only the claims in issue in the earlier proceedings.
Why did the settlement agreement not cover the later claims?
The agreement was interpreted as settling the particular claims in the earlier proceedings. It did not contain wording sufficient to release every possible claim connected with the wider development.
Why did the estoppel argument fail?
The alleged representation was not adequately particularised. The court also found that entering into a settlement of specific claims did not amount to a representation that claims outside its scope had also been settled.
What is an abuse of process in civil litigation?
Abuse of process involves the misuse of court proceedings. The court applies a broad, merits-based assessment of the circumstances, including whether later litigation causes unjust harassment or oppression.
Does failing to raise a claim in earlier proceedings automatically make later proceedings abusive?
No. The court must consider whether the claim could and should have been raised earlier and assess all relevant circumstances. The mere possibility of bringing a claim earlier is not enough on its own.
Who delivered the judgment?
The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Eyre in the Technology and Construction Court of the High Court.