FAIRGROVE HOMES LIMITED v MONUMENT TWO LIMITED

FAIRGROVE HOMES LIMITED v MONUMENT TWO LIMITED

The Part 8 Claim did not constitute proceedings to determine liability under clause 2.1(d) of the Settlement Agreement as required by paragraph 3 of the Tomlin Order Schedule. The relief sought did not seek a final determination of entitlement to the £50,000 but merely sought to keep the funds in escrow pending a final account. Therefore, under the Tomlin Order, the escrow funds must be paid to Fairgrove without set off or deduction. Alternatively, if the Part 8 Claim had been valid, the court would have found that clause 2.1(d) required payment of the £50,000 to Fairgrove by 30 April 2020, regardless of whether a final account had been agreed.

Parties
Claimant (ht 2020 000364) / Defendant (ht 2021 000411): Fairgrove Homes Limited; Defendant (ht 2020 000364) / Claimant (ht 2021 000411): Monument Two Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction/contract) / Judgment on Consolidated Enforcement and Declaratory Applications
Outcome
Application granted for Fairgrove; escrow funds to be released to Fairgrove. Part 8 Claim dismissed as otiose.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision, Interpretation of Tomlin Orders, Escrow Arrangements, Summary Judgment, Declaratory Relief
Contract Law Construction Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision Interpretation of Tomlin Orders Escrow Arrangements Summary Judgment Declaratory Relief

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

Parties

Fairgrove Homes Limited

Claimant (ht 2020 000364) / Defendant (ht 2021 000411)

Monument Two Limited

Defendant (ht 2020 000364) / Claimant (ht 2021 000411)

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction/contract) / Judgment on Consolidated Enforcement and Declaratory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Part 8 Claim constituted proceedings within paragraph 3 of the Tomlin Order Schedule
  2. 2 Proper construction of clause 2.1(d) of the Settlement Agreement regarding payment of £50,000
  3. 3 Whether Fairgrove is entitled to immediate release of escrowed funds

Ratio Decidendi

The Part 8 Claim did not constitute proceedings to determine liability under clause 2.1(d) of the Settlement Agreement as required by paragraph 3 of the Tomlin Order Schedule. The relief sought did not seek a final determination of entitlement to the £50,000 but merely sought to keep the funds in escrow pending a final account. Therefore, under the Tomlin Order, the escrow funds must be paid to Fairgrove without set off or deduction. Alternatively, if the Part 8 Claim had been valid, the court would have found that clause 2.1(d) required payment of the £50,000 to Fairgrove by 30 April 2020, regardless of whether a final account had been agreed.

Court Disposition

Application granted for Fairgrove; escrow funds to be released to Fairgrove. Part 8 Claim dismissed as otiose.

Orders

  • Escrow agent to pay £50,000 (plus accrued interest) to Fairgrove without set off or deduction.
  • Monument to take all reasonable steps to procure payment from escrow agent to Fairgrove.