Michael John Construction Ltd v Golledge & Ors

Michael John Construction Ltd v Golledge & Ors

The adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the decision against the First, Second and Third Defendants as Trustees, or alternatively the Fourth Defendant as agent, because the contract was entered into on behalf of the Trustees and the Claimant was entitled to elect whom to pursue. The adjudicator's decision in the second adjudication was enforceable, there was no bias, and no grounds for a stay of execution existed.

Parties
Claimant: Michael John Construction Limited; Defendant (first): Richard Henry Golledge; Defendant (second): Desmond Fielding Childs; Defendant (third): Mario Carlo Carpanini; Defendant (fourth): Robert Matthews
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Contract Enforcement) / Judgment on Enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision and Application for Stay
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant against the First, Second and Third Defendants; application for stay refused; enforcement of first adjudication decision declined.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Liability of Trustees and Agents, Stay of Execution, Bias in Adjudication
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Liability of Trustees and Agents Stay of Execution Bias in Adjudication

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael John Construction Limited

Claimant

Richard Henry Golledge

Defendant (first)

Desmond Fielding Childs

Defendant (second)

Mario Carlo Carpanini

Defendant (third)

Robert Matthews

Defendant (fourth)

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Contract Enforcement) / Judgment on Enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision and Application for Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the decisions against the named defendants
  2. 2 Whether the correct parties were pursued in adjudication and enforcement proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator's decision should be enforced against the First, Second and Third Defendants or the Fourth Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the decision against the First, Second and Third Defendants as Trustees, or alternatively the Fourth Defendant as agent, because the contract was entered into on behalf of the Trustees and the Claimant was entitled to elect whom to pursue. The adjudicator's decision in the second adjudication was enforceable, there was no bias, and no grounds for a stay of execution existed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant against the First, Second and Third Defendants; application for stay refused; enforcement of first adjudication decision declined.

Orders

  • Judgment entered against the First, Second and Third Defendants for £134,343.84 plus interest to be agreed.
  • Application for stay of execution refused.