Pro-Design v New Millenium Experience Co Ltd [2001] LV 190224

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP.

For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes

The adjudicator's powers were constrained under the HGCRA to decide on issues related only to the construction work. Whilst claims under the HGCRA should normally go through, there is no overriding objective upon the court to ensure that fraudulent claimants should benefit from their fraud.

His Honour Judge MacKay, Technology and Construction Court, Liverpool

26 September 2001

NME entered into a sub-contract with PD for PD to construct lighting systems in the Millennium Dome. A dispute arose over the sums due to PD and was referred to adjudication. NME refused to pay the sums decided on by the adjudicator and PD applied for summary judgment.

The Judge refused the application for summary judgment, and commented that this matter was likely to proceed to the Court of Appeal; therefore he would only give a short judgment. There was an insurmountable objection to PD's getting summary judgment. NME argued that PD was a fraudulent vehicle owned, operated, managed, controlled, supervised and executed by a senior official employee of NME, who was in a position to ensure that the work was given to his company. The Judge agreed with NME that no judgment should be obtained immediately. If NME's assertions were correct, the court would be advancing monies to PD which were brought about by an unlawful and fraudulent conspiracy. If the assertions were incorrect, then PD would be entitled to its money. PD had failed to rebut the NME's assertions of fraud during argument since Counsel had no instructions on the matter. Thorough investigation was required. Whilst claims under the HGCRA should normally go through, there is no overriding objective upon the court to ensure that fraudulent claimants should benefit from their fraud.

The adjudication proceedings had been carried out correctly. NME had made the right representations in the adjudication proceedings. However the adjudicator's powers were constrained under the HGCRA to decide on issues put before him which related only to the construction work.

The adjudicator's powers were constrained under the HGCRA to decide on issues related only to the construction work. Whilst claims under the HGCRA should normally go through, there is no overriding objective upon the court to ensure that fraudulent claimants should benefit from their fraud.

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP.

For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes

Click here to read full-screen | Click here to print the case