Michael John Construction Ltd v Golledge & Ors [2006] EWHC 71 (TCC) (27 January 2006)

Michael John Construction Ltd v Golledge & Ors [2006] EWHC 71 (TCC) (27 January 2006)

The adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the second decision because the correct parties to the contract were the First, Second and Third Defendants as trustees (or alternatively the Fourth Defendant as agent), and the dispute referred was a single dispute under the contract. There was no bias or unfairness, and the Claimant's financial position did not justify a stay of execution. Judgment should be entered for the Claimant against the First, Second and Third Defendants.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 71 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Michael John Construction Limited; First Defendant: Richard Henry Golledge; Second Defendant: Desmond Fielding Childs; Third Defendant: Mario Carlo Carpanini; Fourth Defendant: Robert Matthews
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision (construction Dispute) / Judgment After Summary Enforcement Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant against the First, Second and Third Defendants. Application for stay of execution refused.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Liability of Trustees and Agents, Stay of Execution, Bias in Adjudication
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Liability of Trustees and Agents Stay of Execution Bias in Adjudication

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael John Construction Limited

Claimant

Richard Henry Golledge

First Defendant

Desmond Fielding Childs

Second Defendant

Mario Carlo Carpanini

Third Defendant

Robert Matthews

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision (construction Dispute) / Judgment After Summary Enforcement Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the decisions against the named defendants
  2. 2 Whether the correct parties were pursued for enforcement of the adjudicator's decision
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator's decision should be enforced against the First, Second and Third Defendants or the Fourth Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the second decision because the correct parties to the contract were the First, Second and Third Defendants as trustees (or alternatively the Fourth Defendant as agent), and the dispute referred was a single dispute under the contract. There was no bias or unfairness, and the Claimant's financial position did not justify a stay of execution. Judgment should be entered for the Claimant against the First, Second and Third Defendants.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant against the First, Second and Third Defendants. Application for stay of execution refused.

Orders

  • Judgment entered against the First, Second and Third Defendants for £134,343.84 plus interest (to be agreed).
  • Application for stay of execution refused.