J & B Hopkins Limited v A & V Building Soltuions Limited
[2023] EWHC 301 (TCC)
Bexhill Construction Ltd v Kingsmead Homes Ltd
3 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2344 (TCC)
High Court
A subcontractor (Bexhill) won a quick court case against the main contractor (Kingsmead) to get paid £49,664.80. Kingsmead argued the judge who initially decided the case made a mistake, but the court said the first judge looked at everything and the decision stands. Kingsmead also tried to delay the payment, but didn't have enough evidence to do so.
Key Facts
- •Bexhill Construction Ltd (Claimant) sought summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's decision against Kingsmead Homes Ltd (Defendant).
- •The dispute concerned an unpaid interim payment of £49,664.80 for bricklaying services.
- •The subcontract contained clauses specifying payment procedures and variation notification.
- •The Defendant issued a pay less notice, claiming non-compliance with the subcontract.
- •The adjudicator ruled in favor of the Claimant, finding the Defendant's pay less notice non-compliant.
- •The Defendant argued the adjudicator failed to consider its defense that the payment application was invalid due to unapproved additional works.
Legal Principles
An adjudicator's decision is normally enforced by summary judgment; the court doesn't assess merits, only limited grounds for resistance (e.g., material breach of natural justice).
A material breach of natural justice occurs when a substantive defense isn't considered; a peripheral issue's omission isn't material.
[Cantillon Limited v Urvasco Limited [2008] EWHC 282 (TCC), Quarterzelec Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Limited [2008] EWHC 3315 (TCC), C & E Jacques Partnership v Ensign Contractors Limited [2009] EWHC 3383 (TCC), NAP Anglia Ltd v Sun-Land Development Co Ltd [2011] EWHC 2846 (TCC)]
Courts rarely interfere with adjudicator decisions unless the referred question is different or the process is obviously unfair.
[Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard [2005] EWCA Civ 1358]
Adjudicators aren't obligated to detail every party's arguments or provide reasons for each conclusion unless necessary for explanation.
[Balfour Beatty Construction v Modus Corovest (Blackpool) Ltd [2008] EWHC 3029 (TCC), HS Works Limited v Enterprise Managed Services Limited [2009] EWHC 729 (TCC)]
Deliberately ignoring a defense is different from inadvertently overlooking an issue; the former may invalidate the decision, the latter usually won't.
[Pilon Limited v Breyer Group PLC [2010] EWHC 837 (TCC)]
Disregarding a party's arguments and evidence is a material breach; the court doesn't need to investigate if a different decision would have resulted, only that a real possibility exists.
[CJP Builders Limited v William Verry Limited [2008] BLR 545]
An adjudicator can breach natural justice by failing to address matters before them or not giving parties a chance to be heard, regardless of whether the decision would have differed.
[PC Harrington Contractors v Tyroddy Construction [2011] EWHC 813 (TCC)]
A stay of execution may be granted if a claimant likely can't repay, but not if their financial position is similar to when the contract was made or if it's partly due to the defendant's non-payment.
[Wimbledon Construction Company 200 Limited v Derek Vago [2005] EWHC 1086 (TCC), Bexheat Limited v Essex Services Group Limited [2022] EWHC 936 (TCC)]
Outcomes
Summary judgment granted to the Claimant for £49,664.80.
The adjudicator considered all defenses, even if not explicitly detailed in the decision; the Defendant didn't show a material breach of natural justice or a real prospect of successfully defending the claim; application for stay of enforcement dismissed due to insufficient pleading and lack of evidence of probable inability to repay.
Similar Cases
WRB (N.I.) Limited v Henry Construction Projects Limited
[2023] EWHC 278 (TCC)
Bell Building Limited v TClarke Contracting Limited
[2024] EWHC 1929 (TCC)
Malin Industrial Concrete Floors Limited (in administration) v Volkerfitzpatrick Limited
[2024] EWHC 2890 (TCC)
Bellway Homes Limited v Surgo Construction Limited
[2024] EWHC 10 (TCC)