Sleaford Building Services Ltd v Isoplus Piping Systems Ltd [2023] EWHC 1643 (TCC) (04 July 2023)

Sleaford Building Services Ltd v Isoplus Piping Systems Ltd [2023] EWHC 1643 (TCC) (04 July 2023)

The Part 36 offer made by Isoplus was not a genuine attempt to settle the proceedings as it offered only a negligible concession (0.1% of the claim), and thus it would be unjust to grant the enhanced benefits under CPR 36.17(4). However, as Sleaford never had a real defence to enforcement and merely sought to delay payment, indemnity costs were appropriate for the Part 7 proceedings.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1643 (TCC)
Parties
Part 8 Claimant/part 7 Defendant: Sleaford Building Services Limited; Part 8 Defendant/part 7 Claimant: Isoplus Piping Systems Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Post Judgment Applications on Interest and Costs Following Enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision
Outcome
Application for enhanced Part 36 consequences refused; indemnity costs awarded to Isoplus for Part 7 proceedings.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, CPR Part 36 Offers, Costs (indemnity and Standard), Interest on Judgment Debts
Civil Procedure Construction Law Adjudication Enforcement CPR Part 36 Offers Costs (indemnity and Standard) Interest on Judgment Debts

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sleaford Building Services Limited

Part 8 Claimant/part 7 Defendant

Isoplus Piping Systems Limited

Part 8 Defendant/part 7 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Post Judgment Applications on Interest and Costs Following Enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Isoplus is entitled to enhanced interest, indemnity costs, and an additional amount under CPR 36.17(4) following a Part 36 offer
  2. 2 Whether the Part 36 offer constituted a genuine attempt to settle the proceedings
  3. 3 What costs order should be made in respect of the Part 7 proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Part 36 offer made by Isoplus was not a genuine attempt to settle the proceedings as it offered only a negligible concession (0.1% of the claim), and thus it would be unjust to grant the enhanced benefits under CPR 36.17(4). However, as Sleaford never had a real defence to enforcement and merely sought to delay payment, indemnity costs were appropriate for the Part 7 proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application for enhanced Part 36 consequences refused; indemnity costs awarded to Isoplus for Part 7 proceedings.

Orders

  • Isoplus's application for enhanced interest, indemnity costs, and additional amount under CPR 36.17(4) refused.
  • Sleaford ordered to pay Isoplus's costs of the Part 7 proceedings on the indemnity basis.