High Court success for Adam Beaumont in the TCC

October 4, 2023

Adam Beaumont of Exchange Chambers successfully enforces adjudicator’s award in the TCC whilst resisting an application to stay for enforcement in Bexhill Construction Ltd -v- Kingsmead Homes Ltd.

Adam was instructed to represent the Claimant in the enforcement of an adjudicator’s award in respect of a construction contract for bricklaying services at a development in Warrington.

The Claimant had made an application for payment to the Defendant for £49,664.80. The Defendant had refused to pay and the matter was referred to the adjudicator. The adjudicator decided in the Claimant’s favour, however the Defendant did not pay.

The Claimant applied for summary judgment enforcing the adjudicator’s award. The Defendant resisted the same on the basis (1) the adjudicator had failed to take account of arguments in its defence, and (2) there being a probable risk the Claimant would not be able to repay the judgment sum due to insolvency, the matter should be stayed.

In deciding the matter, HHJ Kelly, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, found;

  1. The adjudicator had confirmed he had taken account of the arguments advanced by the Defendant, even though not all arguments had been explicitly referred to in the reasoned award.
  2. There was nothing to suggest the adjudicator had failed to consider the arguments advanced by the Defendant or there had been a deliberate exclusion of the same (in line with Pilon Limited v Breyer Group PLC [2010] EWHC 837 (TCC)).
  3. Whilst there was no requirement for the adjudicator to give reasons, he nevertheless did so. Having chosen to give reasons, there was no obligation to provide reasons and a discussion of every point raised by the parties. It was a low bar for the adjudicator to negotiate in terms of reasons.
  4. On balance, there was insufficient evidence to establish a probable risk of insolvency (in accordance with Wimbledon Construction Company 200 Limited v Derek Vago [2005] EWHC 1086 (TCC) and Bexheat Limited v Essex Services Group Limited [2022] EWHC 936 (TCC)).

Adam was instructed by Stephen Radcliffe and Joe Mills of Ward Hadaway LLP, Leeds.

The final judgment can be read here: