Grove Construction (London) Ltd v Bagshot Manor Ltd [2025] EWHC 591 (TCC) (13 March 2025)

Grove Construction (London) Ltd v Bagshot Manor Ltd [2025] EWHC 591 (TCC) (13 March 2025)

The deed of assignment transferred only BMDL's rights and benefits under the contract to the Defendant, not its obligations or liabilities. There was no novation. Therefore, the Defendant did not become a party to the contract and was not liable for retention monies. The adjudicator lacked jurisdiction as the dispute was not between the original parties to the contract.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 591 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant (part 7) / Defendant (part 8): Grove Construction (London) Limited; Defendant (part 7) / Claimant (part 8): Bagshot Manor Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Construction Contract Dispute (part 7 and Part 8 Claims) / Summary Judgment Application and Simultaneous Part 8 Claim for Declarations
Outcome
Claimant's application for summary judgment dismissed; Defendant's Part 8 claim for declaration succeeds.
Legal Topics
Assignment of Contractual Rights, Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Novation, Retention Monies
Construction Law Contract Law Assignment of Contractual Rights Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Novation Retention Monies

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

Parties

Grove Construction (London) Limited

Claimant (part 7) / Defendant (part 8)

Bagshot Manor Limited

Defendant (part 7) / Claimant (part 8)

Procedural Posture

Construction Contract Dispute (part 7 and Part 8 Claims) / Summary Judgment Application and Simultaneous Part 8 Claim for Declarations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is liable for retention monies under the contract by virtue of assignment
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the Claimant and Defendant
  3. 3 Whether the deed of assignment transferred obligations and liabilities or only rights and benefits

Ratio Decidendi

The deed of assignment transferred only BMDL's rights and benefits under the contract to the Defendant, not its obligations or liabilities. There was no novation. Therefore, the Defendant did not become a party to the contract and was not liable for retention monies. The adjudicator lacked jurisdiction as the dispute was not between the original parties to the contract.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application for summary judgment dismissed; Defendant's Part 8 claim for declaration succeeds.

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment dismissed
  • Declaration granted in favour of Defendant that it is not liable for retention monies under the contract