Lidl Great Britain Ltd v Closed Circuit Cooling Ltd (t/a 3CL) [2023] EWHC 2243 (TCC) (11 September 2023)

Lidl Great Britain Ltd v Closed Circuit Cooling Ltd (t/a 3CL) [2023] EWHC 2243 (TCC) (11 September 2023)

The requirements for payment applications under the contract were not conditions precedent; non-compliance did not invalidate AFP19. PAY-7 was not a valid payment notice but a pay less notice, as it included deductions for liquidated damages contrary to the contract. There was no material breach of natural justice by the adjudicator. Even if there was, Lidl's argument was not properly arguable. Estoppel by convention applied to Lidl's objections regarding AFP19's form. The adjudicator's decision was enforceable and summary judgment for 3CL was appropriate.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2243 (TCC)
Parties
Part 8 Claimant / Part 7 Defendant: Lidl Great Britain Limited; Part 8 Defendant / Part 7 Claimant: Closed Circuit Cooling Limited t/a 3CL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2023
Procedural Posture
High Court Technology and Construction Court Proceedings (part 7 Summary Judgment and Part 8 Claim) / Judgment Following Combined Hearing of Summary Judgment Application and Declaratory Relief Claim
Outcome
Summary judgment for 3CL; Lidl's Part 8 claim for declaratory relief dismissed.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Payment Notices, Estoppel by Convention, Natural Justice in Adjudication, Interpretation of Contract Conditions Precedent, Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Payment Notices Estoppel by Convention Natural Justice in Adjudication Interpretation of Contract Conditions Precedent +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lidl Great Britain Limited

Part 8 Claimant / Part 7 Defendant

Closed Circuit Cooling Limited t/a 3CL

Part 8 Defendant / Part 7 Claimant

Procedural Posture

High Court Technology and Construction Court Proceedings (part 7 Summary Judgment and Part 8 Claim) / Judgment Following Combined Hearing of Summary Judgment Application and Declaratory Relief Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator's decision should be summarily enforced
  2. 2 Whether alleged breaches of contract by 3CL invalidated its payment application (AFP19)
  3. 3 Whether PAY-7 was a valid payment notice or a pay less notice

Ratio Decidendi

The requirements for payment applications under the contract were not conditions precedent; non-compliance did not invalidate AFP19. PAY-7 was not a valid payment notice but a pay less notice, as it included deductions for liquidated damages contrary to the contract. There was no material breach of natural justice by the adjudicator. Even if there was, Lidl's argument was not properly arguable. Estoppel by convention applied to Lidl's objections regarding AFP19's form. The adjudicator's decision was enforceable and summary judgment for 3CL was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for 3CL; Lidl's Part 8 claim for declaratory relief dismissed.

Orders

  • Summary judgment granted in favour of 3CL for the sum awarded by the adjudicator.
  • Lidl's application for declaratory relief refused.