Companies Court

Guardi Shoes Ltd v Datum Contracts [2002] CILL 1934

Following a dispute over a shop refurbishment, the client Guardi refused to allow contractors Datum to remedy defects. Datum obtained an award of £108,000 on adjudication; Guardi failing to serve a S111 HGCR Act notice. Guardi agreed to a consent judgment on the day before the allocated hearing. When Guardi failed to satisfy its liability under the consent judgment, Datum served a statutory demand followed by steps for a winding-up petition. Guardi sought to continue an injunction against the advertisement of the petition, but the court refused the application; Guardi had only itself to blame for failing to serve the S111 notice and could not allege abuse of process merely because it might have an arguable counter-claim.

Glovers acted for the Respondent, Datum Contracts (counsel Piers Stansfield Keating Chambers)