header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
15 February 2013
Issue: 7548 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Practice and procedure—Payment into court—Principles to be applied

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Lazari v London & Newcastle (Camden) Ltd [2013] EWHC 97 (TCC)

31 January 2013, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court, Akenhead J 

The Technology and Construction Court has set out principles to be applied in making an order for payment into court pursuant to CPR 3.1. 

Jonathan Lee (instructed by Charles Russell LLP) for the claimant. Jessica Stephens (instructed by Fladgate LLP) for the defendant. 

The defendant was the long leaseholder of a site in London NW1. It engaged consultants and contractors to design and construct a substantial number of luxury flats and social housing at the site. By agreement of September 2010, the defendant agreed to complete the construction of one of the flats and sell it to the claimant on a long lease. The claimant maintained that there was a continuing defect or problem in the form of excessive overheating of her flat. After initially denying liability, the defendant eventually initiated remedial works in or about mid-2012, followed by further work

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll