Shaw & Anor v Massey Foundation & Pilings Ltd.

Shaw & Anor v Massey Foundation & Pilings Ltd.

The appellants were not residential occupiers of East Lodge at the time of the contract, so section 106 did not apply and the adjudicator had jurisdiction. The procedural arguments regarding summary judgment and TCC procedures were irrelevant to the right to enforce the adjudicator’s decision. Both applications for permission to appeal were dismissed.

Parties
Appellants: Mr and Mrs Christopher Shaw; Respondents: Massey Foundation & Pilings Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Residential Occupier Exemption, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Stay of Proceedings, Interpretation of Housing Grants (construction and Regeneration) Act 1996
Construction Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Residential Occupier Exemption Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Stay of Proceedings Interpretation of Housing Grants (construction and Regeneration) Act 1996

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr and Mrs Christopher Shaw

Appellants

Massey Foundation & Pilings Ltd

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were residential occupiers under section 106 of the Housing Grants (Construction and Regeneration) Act 1996, thereby excluding adjudication provisions
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' failure to seek summary judgment or abridge time under TCC procedures justified a stay for arbitration
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the award

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were not residential occupiers of East Lodge at the time of the contract, so section 106 did not apply and the adjudicator had jurisdiction. The procedural arguments regarding summary judgment and TCC procedures were irrelevant to the right to enforce the adjudicator’s decision. Both applications for permission to appeal were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to amend the notice of appeal refused
  • Application for permission to appeal against the order of HHJ MacKay dismissed