Technology and Construction Court

Gray and Sons Builders (Bedford) Ltd v Essential Box Company Ltd 108 Con LR 49 [2006]

Where an adjudicator’s award had not been met by payment from the defendant, the defendant’s solicitors had indicated that the claimant’s enforcement proceedings would be contested and took a number of technical points. On the day before the hearing of the enforcement application, they indicated that the application would not be contested. The claimant obtained indemnity costs, the court holding that defendants who avoided paying on an adjudicator’s decision until the last moment or beyond were seeking to frustrate the adjudication provisions of the HGCR Act.

Glovers acted for the claimant, (counsel - Piers Stansfield Keating Chambers).

Amber Construction v London Interspace [2007] EWHC 3042

A claim was issued for the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision. The defendant acknowledged service admitting the entirety of the claim. The claimant incurred costs of more than £8,000 in preparing the claim for issue, following the procedure set out in paragraph 9.2 of the TCC guide. The defendant contended that the claimant was entitled only to fixed costs of £100 under CPR Part 45. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the claimant. Adjudication enforcement claims are not akin to debt collection actions. The claimant’s costs were assessed at approximately 74% of the total amount of costs claimed on summary assessment.

Glovers acted for the claimant

Lloyd Projects v Malnick [2005] Adj.L.R. 07/22

The claimant sought to enforce an adjudicator’s decision in the sum of £116,000. The Defendant contended in the adjudication that there was no statutory right of adjudication because the contract was not one that was in writing falling within S107 HGCR Act. The adjudicator proceeded on the basis that there was a statutory right to adjudicate. The court held that the contract was not one that came within S107 and dismissed the application to enforce. Not all of the terms agreed orally had been reduced to writing.

Glovers acted for the claimant (counsel – Delia Dumaresq Atkin Chambers)