Gray & Sons Builders (Bedford) Ltd. v Essential Box Company Ltd. [2006] EWHC 2520 (TCC)

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP.

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

Defendants who inform the court at the eleventh hour of their decision not to contest an application for adjudication enforcement may well find themselves stung by an order for costs calculated on an indemnity basis.

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

Gray brought an application for summary judgment to enforce an adjudication decision against Essential Box.  Essential Box contested the application until the morning before the hearing, when it indicated that it did not oppose Gray’s application.  The issue of the measure of costs fell to be determined by the court.

Judge Coulson QC took the view that in applications for adjudication enforcement, where the defendant only informs the court shortly before the hearing that it does not intend to contest the application, an order for indemnity costs would usually be appropriate.  Defendants who avoid paying up in accordance with an adjudicator’s decision until the last moment or beyond were seeking to frustrate the adjudication provisions within the HGCRA or the adjudication scheme provided for within any given construction contract and therefore should be penalised by an indemnity costs order.

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