Nageh v Giddings [2006] EWHC 3240 (TCC)

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP.

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

In this case, the court took the opportunity to express its disapproval at attempts to attack the adjudicator’s jurisdiction on the basis of minor procedural gripes, which were, in the circumstances, unfounded. 

His Honour Judge Coulson QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court

This case dealt with an application to set aside a summary judgment based on an unpaid adjudication order made against the Defendants.  The court held that the application failed on procedural grounds.  Firstly, there was a long delay (over a year) in bringing the application.  Secondly, the Defendants argued that they had been unaware of the proceedings or the summary judgment.  The judge found that the Claimants had duly complied with the requirements for service in the Civil Procedure Rules therefore he held that there was no good explanation for the Defendants’ non-attendance at the summary judgment hearing.

Although this was sufficient to dispose of the application, Judge Coulson QC did go on to consider, obiter, the position if he were wrong and the summary judgment should have been set aside.  The Claimant would seek to enforce the adjudicator’s decision again.  The defendants’ principal complaint in respect of the adjudication also related to the service of the documentation.  The judge found that there was no reason why the adjudicator should insist upon more onerous service requirements than those set out in the CPR and that no criticism could be made of the service of documents in the adjudication.

The judge was similarly unimpressed with a series of other “minor procedural gripes”, dressed up as an attack on the adjudicator’s jurisdiction.  He made it clear that the court would be very suspicious of all arguments that seek to rely on breach of natural justice.

Furthermore, the adjudicator’s decision was in any event only temporarily binding and the Defendants could, if they wished, issue their own proceedings to seek to have the money repaid by the Claimant together with any other damages or losses they had suffered as a result.

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