True Fix Construction Ltd v Apollo Property Services Group Ltd

True Fix Construction Ltd v Apollo Property Services Group Ltd

The court found that TFC’s financial position, based on profit and loss reports and turnover, does not demonstrate sufficient probability that TFC would be unable to repay the judgment sum if required. The financial position is not substantially worse than at contract date, and Apollo was aware of TFC’s difficulties...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: True Fix Construction Limited; Defendant: Apollo Property Services Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Dispute / Application for Summary Judgment and Stay of Enforcement
Outcome
Summary judgment granted; stay of enforcement refused.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Summary Judgment, Stay of Execution, Financial Solvency in Enforcement
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Enforcement Summary Judgment Stay of Execution Financial Solvency in Enforcement

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

True Fix Construction Limited

Claimant

Apollo Property Services Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Dispute / Application for Summary Judgment and Stay of Enforcement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision awarding £125,124.41 to TFC be stayed due to alleged insolvency?
  2. 2 Is TFC’s financial position such that it would be unable to repay the judgment sum if required after final determination?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that TFC’s financial position, based on profit and loss reports and turnover, does not demonstrate sufficient probability that TFC would be unable to repay the judgment sum if required. The financial position is not substantially worse than at contract date, and Apollo was aware of TFC’s difficulties when awarding further work. Adjudicator’s decisions must be enforced to maintain cashflow in the construction industry.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted; stay of enforcement refused.

Orders

  • Summary judgment in the sum of £125,124.41 plus VAT and interest as awarded by the adjudicator.
  • No stay of enforcement.