R J Knapman Ltd. v Richards & Ors [2006] EWHC 2518 (TCC) (12 October 2006)

R J Knapman Ltd. v Richards & Ors [2006] EWHC 2518 (TCC) (12 October 2006)

The adjudicator's decision is enforceable as to the monetary award because the claimant's alleged failure to comply with other parts of the decision does not preclude enforcement; the defendants' set-off claim fails because it does not logically follow from the adjudicator's decision, which did not exhaustively determine all delay issues or entitle the defendants to further liquidated damages without a clause 2.6 certificate.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 2518 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: R J Knapman Limited; Defendants: Richards and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision (construction Contract) / Judgment on Application to Enforce Adjudicator's Award
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Liquidated Damages, Set Off, Extensions of Time, Appropriation and Reprobation, JCT Intermediate Form
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Enforcement Liquidated Damages Set Off Extensions of Time Appropriation and Reprobation JCT Intermediate Form

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R J Knapman Limited

Claimant

Richards and Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision (construction Contract) / Judgment on Application to Enforce Adjudicator's Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant can enforce the monetary part of the adjudicator's decision while disputing other parts
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are entitled to set-off further liquidated damages against the adjudicator's award

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator's decision is enforceable as to the monetary award because the claimant's alleged failure to comply with other parts of the decision does not preclude enforcement; the defendants' set-off claim fails because it does not logically follow from the adjudicator's decision, which did not exhaustively determine all delay issues or entitle the defendants to further liquidated damages without a clause 2.6 certificate.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Defendants to pay £19,339.93 to the claimant within 14 days together with interest