ISG Retail Limited v FK Construction Limited
[2024] EWHC 878 (TCC)
Sleaford Building Services Limited v Isoplus Piping Systems Limited
28 April 2023
[2023] EWHC 969 (TCC)
High Court
Two companies had a dispute over money. A judge decided one company owed the other money. The company that owed the money tried to get out of it, but the judge said their reasons weren't good enough because they hadn't provided enough information, so they still had to pay.
Key Facts
- •Sleaford Building Services Ltd (Sleaford) and Isoplus Piping Systems Ltd (Isoplus) were parties to an NEC3 subcontract.
- •An adjudicator awarded Isoplus £323,502.32.
- •Sleaford challenged the adjudication decision based on alleged non-compliance with clause 21.4 of the subcontract, which concerned subcontracting and pre-requisites for payment.
- •Sleaford initiated Part 8 proceedings for declaratory relief, while Isoplus initiated Part 7 proceedings to enforce the adjudication decision.
- •The proceedings were consolidated.
- •Clause 21.4 required sub-subcontractors to provide certified copies of sub-subcontracts and evidence of insurance within 7 days.
Legal Principles
The proper approach to parallel Part 7 and Part 8 proceedings is to first determine the Part 7 claim (adjudication enforcement) and then address the Part 8 claim, unless the Part 8 issue is straightforward and self-contained.
A&V Building Solutions Ltd v J&B Hopkins Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 54 at [38]
Part 8 proceedings are suitable where the court's decision on a question is unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 8.1
If a party's obligation is contingent on a particular event, the circumstances of the event must be identified unambiguously in the contract.
Persimmon Homes (South Coast) Ltd v Hall Aggregates (South Coast) Ltd [2008] EWHC 2379 (TCC)
Waiver can be established if a party makes payments with knowledge of non-compliance with contractual conditions.
Case law cited, but specific cases aren't fully detailed in the provided text.
Section 110(1A) HGCRA relates to the enforceability of payment provisions in construction contracts.
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s.110(1A)
Outcomes
Judgment for Isoplus in the Part 7 claim for £323,502.32 plus interest.
The adjudicator's decision was valid and enforceable, and Sleaford's Part 8 claim was unsuitable for determination under Part 8.
Dismissal of Sleaford's Part 8 claim.
Sleaford's Part 8 claim was poorly particularised, involved substantial factual disputes (including potential waiver), and required valuation evidence not currently available. The issues were not suitable for summary determination under Part 8.
No decision on the Section 110(1A) HGCRA point.
The court deemed it inappropriate to decide this point within the context of the Part 8 claim, given the lack of case law, insufficient exploration of consequences, and the absence of clear definition of the issue in the proceedings.