One Hyde Park Wins £35m Battle as Court Condemns Laing O'Rourke's 'Commercially Amoral' Walkout

The High Court has handed down a judgment in One Hyde Park Limited v Laing O’Rourke Construction South Limited [2026] EWHC 155 (TCC), awarding One Hyde Park Limited ("OHP"), the freeholder, just over £35 million for extensive construction defects at one of London’s most high‑profile residential developments. 

The case proceeded in the contractor’s absence after Laing O’Rourke (“LOR”) Construction South Limited withdrew from proceedings shortly before trial — a decision the judge later described as “commercially amoral”.

Background

OHP brought claims against LOR for major defects discovered in the building.

Investigations dating back to 2014, revealed severe corrosion in the chilled water pipework, with laboratory testing indicating a loss of up to 87% of pipe wall thickness. Further defects were identified in the butterfly valves, soldered joins and façade maintenance cradle which failed to operate correctly upon completion. This created risks of leaks, system failures and safety issues, as well as making basic building maintenance much harder.

LOR had defended the case for several years; however, weeks before the trial their solicitors announced they were entering voluntary liquidation and notified the court they no longer intended to participate in the trial.

Despite LOR's withdrawal, under CPR 39.3, the court may proceed with a trial in the absence of a party and strike out a defence where a defendant fails to attend without good reason. Mrs Justice Jefford exercised this power enabling OHP to prove its case through factual and expert evidence but without LOR's submissions.

Strong Judicial Disapproval: 

One of the most striking aspects of the judgment was its criticism of the contractor's conduct. Mrs Justice Jefford noted that while the subsidiary claimed financial difficulty, there was no evidence of wider instability in the LOR group. She characterised the withdrawal as a “commercially amoral” decision that abandoned responsibility to the freeholder and residents.

Key Takeaways

• The court's disapproval of the late-stage withdrawal reinforces that in major defects disputes judicial scrutiny may point towards (and even condemn) the broader commercial behaviour of the parties involved.
• Genuine insolvency will be examined beyond the subsidiary level which brings into question the credibility of the defendant's conduct.
• This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining proper conduct throughout legal proceedings or otherwise facing further reputational damage.