J & B Hopkins Limited v A & V Building Solution Limited
[2023] EWHC 2475 (TCC)
J & B Hopkins Ltd v A & V Buildings Solution Ltd
16 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1483 (TCC)
High Court
Two companies are fighting over money. One company won some money in court, but the losing company wants to delay paying. The judge said the losing company needs to show it really can't pay, and needs to give more information about its money before they make a decision.
Key Facts
- •Two actions arose from disputes concerning a University of Sussex project where J&B Hopkins Ltd (J&BH) engaged A&V Building Solution Ltd (A&V) as a subcontractor.
- •J&BH successfully enforced an adjudication decision against A&V for £96,918.88 (Action 444 of 2022).
- •A&V initiated a second action claiming various sums from J&BH (Action 6 of 2023), including a final account claim.
- •A&V applied for a stay of execution on the judgment in Action 444 of 2022.
- •J&BH applied for a stay of Action 6 of 2023, summary judgment/strike-out, and security for costs in that action.
- •A&V applied for judgment in default against J&BH in Action 6 of 2023 for £370,611.63.
Legal Principles
Award of interest in adjudication enforcement applications.
Senior Courts Act 1981
Cost awards in successful adjudication enforcement applications are typically on an indemnity basis.
Court Practice
Court's discretion to grant a stay of execution under CPR 83.7, considering special circumstances or the applicant's inability to pay.
CPR 83.7
In stay of execution applications based on inability to pay, the applicant must demonstrate this on the balance of probabilities, considering all available funds, including those from associated persons.
Andrew v Flywheel IT Services Ltd [2021] EWHC 3746 (Comm)
A 'pay now, argue later' principle in adjudication, analogous to a no-set-off clause, makes a stay of execution less likely.
Andrew v Flywheel IT Services Ltd [2021] EWHC 3746 (Comm) and Clause 20.3 of the Sub-Contract
Failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol does not automatically entitle a claimant to judgment in default, but allows them to proceed with their substantive claim.
Judge's interpretation of Pre-Action Protocol
Court's approach to applications from litigants in person.
Barton v Wright Hassall llp [2018] UKSC 12 and Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ. 906
Outcomes
Interest awarded to J&BH in Action 444 of 2022 under the Senior Courts Act 1981.
Mr. Frampton's concession.
J&BH awarded costs of £20,822 in Action 444 of 2022 on an indemnity basis.
Standard practice; reasonable sum.
A&V's application for a stay of execution in Action 444 of 2022 adjourned to allow further evidence.
Insufficient evidence presented regarding A&V's and Mr. Paduraru's financial position; need for clarification on outstanding debts and funding sources.
J&BH's application for a stay of Action 6 of 2023 adjourned pending the outcome of the stay of execution application.
Dependent on the stay of execution decision.
Partial strike-out of A&V's claim in Action 6 of 2023.
Claim for final account lacks sufficient detail; legal costs claims lack jurisdiction; Blizzard's fees claim partially allowed.
A&V's application for judgment in default in Action 6 of 2023 dismissed.
Based on J&BH's failure to file a defence, however, the strike-out application resulted in no immediate need for a defense.
J&BH's applications for security for costs and extension of time for defence in Action 6 of 2023 adjourned.
Dependent on the stay of execution decision.
Similar Cases
J & B Hopkins Limited v A & V Building Soltuions Limited
[2023] EWHC 301 (TCC)
A & V Building Solution Limited v J & B Hopkins Limited
[2024] EWHC 2516 (TCC)
Clarion Housing Association Limited v Crest Nicholson Operations Limited
[2023] EWHC 620 (TCC)
Kew Green Group Limited & Anor v Jamerson Lamb & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1628 (KB)