Workplace Technologies v E Squared Ltd & Mr J L Riches [2000] CILL 1607

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP.

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

The court commented that an injunction may not be available to prevent a party continuing with a void adjudication as there was no legal or equitable right to protect; also the balance of convenience may not favour the grant of an injunction.

HHJ Wilcox QC, Technology & Construction Court

16 February 2000

E was engaged by W as a sub-contractor for work at the Bluewater shopping centre. The dispute centred on the value of an interim payment. E had submitted an interim application, and W had not served a notice specifying the sum due. E argued that the result of this was the amount of the application was the sum due.

E served a notice of adjudication, but W argued that the contract did not contain the right to adjudicate because the contract came into effect before 1 May 1998. Almost as soon as the adjudicator was appointed, W issued proceedings and applied for a declaration that the contract had been entered into before 1 May 1998 and an interim injunction to prevent E from continuing with the adjudication proceedings.

W's application was heard very quickly. The court found that the contract was signed after 1 May 1998, and therefore that the adjudication could proceed. W therefore did not pursue its injunction application, but the Judge took the opportunity to give guidance as to whether the Court had the power to grant one to restrain a party from initiating a void adjudication.

The court doubted that an interim injunction could be granted. The Judge said that an injunction can only be granted to protect a legal or equitable right which it has jurisdiction to enforce by final judgment. Harassment or needless expense that may be caused by unfair or futile proceedings is insufficient to constitute a legal wrong. The Judge also relied upon cases on arbitration, including Siskina v Distos (1979) AC 210, and comments from Mustill & Boyd (2nd edition).

The Judge also said that even had he been entitled to grant an injunction, he would not have done so as more injustice would have been caused by halting the adjudication than allowing it to proceed. The balance of convenience favoured allowing an adjudication to continue.

Since the jurisdictional argument has been heard by the court, it would seem that W will be unable to repeat these arguments should E apply to the court to enforce any adjudicator's award in its favour.

The court commented that an injunction may not be available to prevent a party continuing with a void adjudication as there was no legal or equitable right to protect; also the balance of convenience may not favour the grant of an injunction.

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