Bell Building Limited v TClarke Contracting Limited
[2024] EWHC 1929 (TCC)
J & B Hopkins Limited v A & V Building Soltuions Limited
15 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 301 (TCC)
High Court
Two companies had a construction dispute. A judge decided one company (J&BH) should get paid by the other (A&V), even though A&V started the dispute. A&V tried to stop the payment, but the judge said the earlier decision was basically fair, even if it wasn't perfect.
Key Facts
- •J&B Hopkins Limited (J&BH) claimed enforcement of an adjudication decision against A&V Building Solution Limited (A&V).
- •The adjudication concerned a sub-contract for plumbing works at Mouslecoomb University campus.
- •A&V, unrepresented by counsel, alleged seven breaches of contract by J&BH, primarily relating to delays, lack of instructions, and prevention of work.
- •The adjudicator awarded £82,956.88 to J&BH, plus his fees (£13,962.00).
- •A&V argued that J&BH failed to comply with the TCC Pre-Action Protocol and that the adjudicator's decision was flawed.
- •A&V's pre-action protocol argument failed because the protocol doesn't apply to adjudication enforcement.
Legal Principles
Adjudicator's decisions will be enforced by summary judgment unless they were made without jurisdiction or involved material breaches of natural justice.
J & B Hopkins Limited v Trant Engineering Limited [2020] EWHC 1305 (TCC)
An adjudicator does not need to address every issue raised, and inadvertent failures to consider issues or documents do not automatically render a decision unenforceable.
Amec Group Ltd v Thames Water Ltd. [2010] EWHC 419 (TCC); Pilon Ltd v Breyer Group plc [2010] EWHC 837 (TCC); Broughton Brickwork Ltd v F Parkinson Ltd [2014] EWHC 4525 (TCC)
The court has jurisdiction to assist a body corporate with a McKenzie friend, even without full compliance with CPR 39.6 and PD 39A, in exceptional circumstances to prevent a failure of justice.
Bank St Petersburg v Arkhangelsky (No. 2) [2015] EWHC 2997 (Ch)
Outcomes
Summary judgment granted for J&BH.
The adjudicator's decision, while containing some procedural imperfections, was not shown to be without jurisdiction or a breach of natural justice. The court found the adjudicator's factual and legal conclusions were permissible, even if potentially contestable in later proceedings.
A&V's application to suspend enforcement proceedings was refused.
The application was late, the Pre-Action Protocol did not apply, and J&BH's response to A&V's letter, while late, did not warrant sanctions.