RBH Building Contractors Ltd v James & Anor [2025] EWHC 2005 (TCC) (10 June 2025)

RBH Building Contractors Ltd v James & Anor [2025] EWHC 2005 (TCC) (10 June 2025)

The Defendants have a real prospect of establishing the residential occupier exception under section 106, depriving the adjudicator of jurisdiction. Even if jurisdiction existed, the payless notice served was valid, specifying the sum due and the basis for withholding payment. The adjudicator's decision is not enforced, and the Defendants succeed on their Part 8 claim. The adjudicator's fee order is not reversed, as the Court lacks power to interfere with it.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2005 (TCC)
Parties
Part 7 Claimant / Part 8 Defendant: RBH Building Contractors Ltd; Part 7 Defendant / Part 8 Claimant: Ashley James; Part 7 Defendant / Part 8 Claimant: Tracy James
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Enforcement and Part 8 Declarations / Judgment on Summary Enforcement and Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed; Part 8 claim succeeds.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Residential Occupier Exception, Validity of Payless Notice, Adjudicator's Fees
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Residential Occupier Exception Validity of Payless Notice Adjudicator's Fees

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 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RBH Building Contractors Ltd

Part 7 Claimant / Part 8 Defendant

Ashley James

Part 7 Defendant / Part 8 Claimant

Tracy James

Part 7 Defendant / Part 8 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Enforcement and Part 8 Declarations / Judgment on Summary Enforcement and Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction under section 106 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 due to the residential occupier exception
  2. 2 Whether the payless notice served by the Defendants was valid under section 111 of the 1996 Act
  3. 3 Whether the Court can reverse the adjudicator's decision on fees

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants have a real prospect of establishing the residential occupier exception under section 106, depriving the adjudicator of jurisdiction. Even if jurisdiction existed, the payless notice served was valid, specifying the sum due and the basis for withholding payment. The adjudicator's decision is not enforced, and the Defendants succeed on their Part 8 claim. The adjudicator's fee order is not reversed, as the Court lacks power to interfere with it.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed; Part 8 claim succeeds.

Orders

  • Adjudicator's decision not enforced.
  • Declaration that the payless notice dated 27 November 2024 was valid.