2. Award-enforceability-use of Part 8 proceedings-error of law
Seadown Developments Ltd v SMCC Construction Ltd6
The Claimant engaged the Defendant under an amended JCT 2011 Intermediate Form of
Building Contract with Contractor’s Design to build a block of flats. A dispute over
the final account went to adjudication, in which the adjudicator awarded the
Defendant £277,374 payable within 7 days. In reaching his decision the adjudicator had held
that clause 2.24.5 of the contract applied only to the Contractor’s Design Portion and not the
whole of the works.
The Claimant brought Part 8 proceedings for a declaration firstly that the finding was in error and
secondly the decision should not be enforced. The Defendant sought judgment on the award.
Held by Jefford J:
1. As long as the decision was within the adjudicator’s jurisdiction and not made in breach of
natural justice it would be enforced.
2. The increasing use of Part 8 proceedings was recognised in the TCC guide 9.34 and could
be used to determine fundamental points of principle in the circumstances set out in Hutton.7
3. This case was nowhere near those circumstances. Even if the adjudicator had been wrong
in his interpretation of clause 2.24.5 of the contract, the claim did not turn on that
finding; in fact the vast majority of the claim had nothing to do with it.
Summary judgment granted to the Defendant.
Comment
Jefford J adopted examples from Hutton and reaffirmed the principle that in order for a Defendant
to be able to resist summary judgment on the basis of its Part 8 claim, it must be able to show
that the point at issue was short and self- contained; required no oral evidence or other
elaboration; and was on which on a summary judgment application it would be unconscionable
for the court to ignore. Although the first declaration regarding the interpretation of the
contract was suitable for Part 8 proceedings, it was not appropriate for the court to
declare that the whole of the adjudicator’s decision was unenforceable.
Even if the court were to find on a Part 8 that an adjudicator had made an error in their decision,
that declaration would not mean that the adjudicator’s decision was unenforceable where the
decision rested on additional issues and findings.
3. Costs-jurisdiction
See PFG Design Ltd v Masma Ltd PFG Design Ltd v Masma Ltd (below)
This case is reported more fully under Jurisdiction. Despite the decision in Enviroflow8 the Court
declined to determine whether the adjudicator had been entitled to award a fixed sum of £100
under section 5A of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (“LPA”).
The point was not fully argued and the amount was small.

 

This article was originally written and published on the internet by Slater Heelis in 2018

 

This document (and any information accessed through links in this document) is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Professional legal advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.

 

BDAS specialise in: providing contract advice, resolving construction disputes, managing construction claims & adjudications and will give you competitive, independent advice tailored to your specific construction problems.

If you could benefit from this please call Jon now on 07795 231 231 or email: Jon@BDASweb.com