J & B Hopkins Ltd v A & V Buildings Solution Ltd
[2023] EWHC 1483 (TCC)
J & B Hopkins Limited v A & V Building Solution Limited
6 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2475 (TCC)
High Court
Two companies fought over money from a building project. The judge made one company wait to collect its money because the other company was struggling financially, partly due to the first company's actions. The judge also ordered the struggling company to redo its paperwork and threw out a claim for emotional distress.
Key Facts
- •Two actions arose from disputes over the same construction project between J&B Hopkins Limited (J&BH) and A&V Building Solution Ltd (A&V).
- •J&BH obtained summary judgment in Action 444 of 2022 for £96,918.88 based on an adjudication decision.
- •A&V brought Action 6 of 2023 claiming various sums from J&BH.
- •A&V's claim form in Action 6 of 2023 was deemed non-compliant with CPR, requiring amendment.
- •A&V served an amended pleading, but it was criticized for its format and lack of clarity.
- •The court considered A&V's financial position and applications for a stay of execution, a stay of Action 6 of 2023, and security for costs.
- •J&BH's contracharges were a key factor in the previous adjudication decision.
- •A&V's claims included assessment of the final account, variations, uneconomic working, and loss of profit.
Legal Principles
Enforcement of adjudication decisions follows a 'pay now, argue later' principle.
Various case law cited, including Wimbledon Construction Company 2000 Ltd v Vago
The court has discretion to stay execution of judgment under CPR 83.7, considering special circumstances and the applicant's ability to pay.
CPR 83.7
Damages for mental distress are generally not recoverable in breach of contract cases, except in exceptional circumstances where the contract's object is peace of mind.
Farley v Skinner
The court may stay proceedings where a claimant refuses to honour an adjudicator's decision, but this power is used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.
Anglo Swiss Holdings Ltd v Packman Lucas Ltd, Kew Holdings Ltd v Donald Insall Associates Ltd
Outcomes
A&V's amended pleading is deemed non-compliant and needs further amendment to comply with CPR, including using a Scott Schedule.
The pleading's format was confusing and made it difficult to identify and analyze the claims.
A&V's claim for directors' mental suffering/distress is struck out.
Such damages are generally not recoverable in breach of contract cases, and this case did not fall under the exception.
A stay of execution is granted for the judgment in Action 444 of 2022.
A&V's financial difficulties, exacerbated by J&BH's conduct, and the arguable nature of A&V's claim in Action 6 of 2023 justify a stay to avoid manifest injustice.
J&BH's application for a stay of Action 6 of 2023 is refused.
It would be inconsistent to grant a stay of execution in Action 444 of 2022 and also stay Action 6 of 2023, considering the circumstances.
J&BH's application for security for costs is refused.
Such an order would stifle an arguable claim considering A&V's financial position.
Similar Cases
Kew Green Group Limited & Anor v Jamerson Lamb & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1628 (KB)
Adam Robert Giaquinto & Ors v ITI Capital Ltd
[2023] EWHC 2467 (KB)
Clarion Housing Association Limited v Crest Nicholson Operations Limited
[2023] EWHC 620 (TCC)
A & V Building Solution Limited v J & B Hopkins Limited
[2024] EWHC 2516 (TCC)