Lidl Great Britain Limited v Closed Circuit Cooling Limited t/a 3CL

Lidl Great Britain Limited v Closed Circuit Cooling Limited t/a 3CL

There was no substantive defence to enforcement of the adjudicator's decision. The requirements cited by Lidl were not conditions precedent to a valid payment application. PAY-7 was not a valid payment notice but a pay less notice. The contract's final date for payment provisions did not comply with s.110(1)(b) of the Act, so the Scheme applied. Any breach of natural justice was not material. Estoppel by convention would have applied in any event. Summary judgment is granted for 3CL.

Parties
Claimant (part 8) / Defendant (part 7): Lidl Great Britain Limited; Defendant (part 8) / Claimant (part 7): Closed Circuit Cooling Limited t/a 3CL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Construction Contract Dispute (part 7 Summary Judgment and Part 8 Claim) / High Court Judgment on Summary Enforcement and Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Summary judgment for 3CL; Lidl's Part 8 claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Payment Provisions Under Construction Contracts, Estoppel by Convention, Natural Justice in Adjudication, Interpretation of Contract Terms
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Enforcement Payment Provisions Under Construction Contracts Estoppel by Convention Natural Justice in Adjudication Interpretation of Contract Terms

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

Parties

Lidl Great Britain Limited

Claimant (part 8) / Defendant (part 7)

Closed Circuit Cooling Limited t/a 3CL

Defendant (part 8) / Claimant (part 7)

Procedural Posture

Construction Contract Dispute (part 7 Summary Judgment and Part 8 Claim) / High Court Judgment on Summary Enforcement and Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

There was no substantive defence to enforcement of the adjudicator's decision. The requirements cited by Lidl were not conditions precedent to a valid payment application. PAY-7 was not a valid payment notice but a pay less notice. The contract's final date for payment provisions did not comply with s.110(1)(b) of the Act, so the Scheme applied. Any breach of natural justice was not material. Estoppel by convention would have applied in any event. Summary judgment is granted for 3CL.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Adjudicator's decision enforced; Lidl to pay 3CL the sum awarded in AFP19 (£781,986.22) plus interest.
  • Lidl's application for declaratory relief dismissed.