Starting Point Recruitment Limited v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council
[2024] EWHC 982 (Comm)
Melton Town Football Club Limited v Hunts Contractors Limited
23 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 3133 (TCC)
High Court
A football club won a big money case against a contractor. The contractor asked the court to make sure the club could pay the contractor's costs if the contractor won. The judge said the contractor could try, but it wouldn't delay the main case, and the contractor won some of their costs back.
Key Facts
- •Melton Town Football Club Limited (Claimant) sought enforcement of a £933,891.58 adjudication award against Hunts Contractors Limited (Defendant).
- •The Defendant applied for security for costs, citing the Claimant's negative balance sheet and potential insolvency.
- •The Claimant argued that the security for costs application was a cynical attempt to delay enforcement, contrary to the 'pay now, argue later' ethos of adjudication.
- •The Defendant's defense challenged the adjudicator's jurisdiction due to allegedly improper service of the notice of adjudication.
- •The Defendant initially claimed £69,200 in summary judgment costs, later reducing it to £53,200.
- •The Claimant's football pitch, the subject of the construction contract, was defective, requiring significant remediation.
- •The adjudication decision found the Defendant in breach of contract and awarded the Claimant substantial damages.
- •The Judge considered the tension between the speedy enforcement of adjudication awards and the defendant's right to security for costs.
Legal Principles
Application for security for costs can be made at any stage but should be done promptly.
CPR Part 25.12 and accompanying notes
Court has discretion to grant security for costs; considers if claim is bona fide, company's prospects of success, and whether application is oppressive.
CPR Part 25 and Sir Lindsay Parkinson v Triplan Ltd [1973] 2 WLR 632
Adjudication is a speedy, interim process; enforcement is crucial, even if challenges to the award's validity exist.
Macob Civil Engineering Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd [1999] BLR 93 and Bouygues v Dahl-Jensen [2000] BLR 522
Outcomes
The application for security for costs was allowed to proceed before the summary judgment hearing.
The court found no inherent inconsistency between the ethos of adjudication and allowing the security for costs application, given the available time to hear both applications without delaying the summary judgment.
The summary judgment hearing remained scheduled for August 14th; no stay was granted.
Allowing the security for costs application would not derail the summary judgment hearing.
The Defendant was awarded costs for the security for costs application.
The Defendant's success in getting the security for costs hearing scheduled, albeit not fully as requested, was due to the Claimant's refusal to cooperate and consider an earlier hearing.
Defendant's costs were partially reduced.
Some aspects of the Defendant's costs were deemed excessive; specifically the solicitor's attendance at the hearing and the brief fee.
Similar Cases
Adam Robert Giaquinto & Ors v ITI Capital Ltd
[2023] EWHC 2467 (KB)
Suzanne Merrills v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 1788 (Admin)
Consort Healthcare (Tameside) Plc v Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
[2024] EWHC 1702 (Ch)
Scenic International Group Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Richard Adenaike & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1178 (Ch)