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

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

The Grove principle does not prohibit all adjudications prior to payment of a notified sum, but only those seeking to re-value matters that could have been raised in a payless notice for the relevant payment cycle. Adjudication no 2 was largely for post-completion defects, but to the extent of £260,899.61 overlapped with matters in PAY-7, the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction for that sum. Lidl is entitled to summary judgment for the balance. In adjudication no 3, the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to determine extension of time for the period 18 June 2022 to 29 September 2022, as this overlapped with the period for which liquidated damages were claimed in PAY-7.

Parties
Claimant (part 7) / Defendant (part 8): Lidl Great Britain Limited; Defendant (part 7) / Claimant (part 8): Closed Circuit Cooling Limited t/a 3CL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Adjudication Enforcement) / High Court Judgment on Summary Judgment and Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Partly allowed; summary judgment granted in part; declaration granted in part
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Payment Provisions, Grove Principle, Liquidated Damages, Extension of Time
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 Payment Provisions Grove Principle Liquidated Damages +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lidl Great Britain Limited

Claimant (part 7) / Defendant (part 8)

Closed Circuit Cooling Limited t/a 3CL

Defendant (part 7) / Claimant (part 8)

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Adjudication Enforcement) / High Court Judgment on Summary Judgment and Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Lidl was entitled to summary judgment enforcing adjudication decision no 2
  2. 2 Whether adjudication decisions 2 and 3 were made without jurisdiction and/or in breach of public policy due to the Grove principle
  3. 3 Whether the Grove principle prohibits commencement of any or only certain adjudications prior to payment of a notified sum

Ratio Decidendi

The Grove principle does not prohibit all adjudications prior to payment of a notified sum, but only those seeking to re-value matters that could have been raised in a payless notice for the relevant payment cycle. Adjudication no 2 was largely for post-completion defects, but to the extent of £260,899.61 overlapped with matters in PAY-7, the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction for that sum. Lidl is entitled to summary judgment for the balance. In adjudication no 3, the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to determine extension of time for the period 18 June 2022 to 29 September 2022, as this overlapped with the period for which liquidated damages were claimed in PAY-7.

Court Disposition

Partly allowed; summary judgment granted in part; declaration granted in part

Orders

  • Summary judgment for Lidl for £496,946.02 of the £757,845.63 awarded in adjudication no 2, plus proportionate interest and adjudicator's costs
  • Declaration that Dr Mastrandrea had no jurisdiction to determine 3CL's right to extension of time for 18 June 2022 to 29 September 2022 in adjudication no 3