Management Solutions & Professional Consultants Ltd v Bennett (Electrical) Services Ltd [2006] EWHC 1720 (TCC) (10 July 2006)

Management Solutions & Professional Consultants Ltd v Bennett (Electrical) Services Ltd [2006] EWHC 1720 (TCC) (10 July 2006)

Both contracts were in writing for the purposes of section 107 HGCRA. Oral variations did not remove the contracts from the scope of the Act where the original contract provided for variations and the requirement for written instructions was waived. The adjudicators had jurisdiction, and their decisions are enforceable. The sums awarded in each adjudication are to be set off against each other, with the net balance payable to Management Solutions.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1720 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant (first Application), Defendant (second Application): Management Solutions & Professional Consultants Limited; Defendant (first Application), Claimant (second Application): Bennett (Electrical) Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Applications to Enforce Adjudicators' Decisions / Judgment After Hearing and Written Submissions
Outcome
Judgment for both parties on their respective claims, with set-off; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Set Off of Cross Claims, Written Contracts Under HGCRA 1996, Variation of Contracts
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Set Off of Cross Claims Written Contracts Under HGCRA 1996 Variation of Contracts

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Management Solutions & Professional Consultants Limited

Claimant (first Application), Defendant (second Application)

Bennett (Electrical) Services Limited

Defendant (first Application), Claimant (second Application)

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Applications to Enforce Adjudicators' Decisions / Judgment After Hearing and Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicators had jurisdiction under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA) to decide the disputes
  2. 2 Whether the contracts were 'in writing' for the purposes of section 107 HGCRA
  3. 3 Whether oral variations removed the contract from the scope of the HGCRA

Ratio Decidendi

Both contracts were in writing for the purposes of section 107 HGCRA. Oral variations did not remove the contracts from the scope of the Act where the original contract provided for variations and the requirement for written instructions was waived. The adjudicators had jurisdiction, and their decisions are enforceable. The sums awarded in each adjudication are to be set off against each other, with the net balance payable to Management Solutions.

Court Disposition

Judgment for both parties on their respective claims, with set-off; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Management Solutions to recover £15,568.30 plus interest from 25 January 2006.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.