Total M and E Services Ltd. v ABB Building Technologies Ltd. [2002] EWHC 248 (Technology) (26th February, 2002)

Total M and E Services Ltd. v ABB Building Technologies Ltd. [2002] EWHC 248 (Technology) (26th February, 2002)

The mis-description of the referring party did not deprive the adjudicator of jurisdiction as all parties knew the true identity; the adjudicator had jurisdiction to award sums for additional works as the contract was in writing and variations were evidenced; costs of adjudication are not recoverable as damages;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 248 (Technology)
Parties
Claimant: Total M and E Services Limited; Defendant: ABB Building Technologies Limited (formerly ABB Steward Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application (enforcement of Adjudicator's Award) / High Court (technology and Construction Court) Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the claimant in the sum of £462,789.69 plus VAT; stay refused except for £121,087.50 plus VAT to be paid into court; costs of stay application to be paid by defendant.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Mis Description of Parties, Variation of Contract, Set Off and Counterclaim, Stay of Execution, Costs of Adjudication
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Mis Description of Parties Variation of Contract Set Off and Counterclaim +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Total M and E Services Limited

Claimant

ABB Building Technologies Limited (formerly ABB Steward Limited)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application (enforcement of Adjudicator's Award) / High Court (technology and Construction Court) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction given the mis-description of the referring party
  2. 2 Whether costs of adjudication are recoverable as damages
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to award sums for additional works not expressly varied in writing

Ratio Decidendi

The mis-description of the referring party did not deprive the adjudicator of jurisdiction as all parties knew the true identity; the adjudicator had jurisdiction to award sums for additional works as the contract was in writing and variations were evidenced; costs of adjudication are not recoverable as damages; set-offs and counterclaims were invalid without a valid withholding notice; no special circumstances justified a stay of execution except for the sum relating to the unresolved set-off, which should be paid into court.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the claimant in the sum of £462,789.69 plus VAT; stay refused except for £121,087.50 plus VAT to be paid into court; costs of stay application to be paid by defendant.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for £462,789.69 plus VAT to claimant
  • £121,087.50 plus VAT to be paid into court pending further order