BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 3235 (TCC) (16 December 2024)

BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 3235 (TCC) (16 December 2024)

The court held that the dispute had crystallised prior to adjudication as Ardmore's continued requests for further information and failure to respond amounted to a non-admission. The adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the DPA 1972 claim as the adjudication clause should be interpreted broadly in line with Fiona Trust and subsequent authorities. There was no breach of natural justice as Ardmore had sufficient notice and opportunity to respond. Accordingly, there was no real prospect of success in Ardmore's grounds of defence, and summary judgment was granted enforcing the adjudicator's decision.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3235 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: BDW Trading Limited; Defendant: Ardmore Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application to Enforce Adjudication Decision / High Court (tcc) Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the claimant enforcing the adjudication decision.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Defective Premises Act 1972, Limitation Act 1980, Building Safety Act 2022, Crystallisation of Dispute, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Natural Justice in Adjudication
Construction Law Contract Law Tort Law Adjudication Enforcement Defective Premises Act 1972 Limitation Act 1980 Building Safety Act 2022 Crystallisation of Dispute +2 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BDW Trading Limited

Claimant

Ardmore Construction Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application to Enforce Adjudication Decision / High Court (tcc) Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dispute had crystallised prior to adjudication
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine a claim under the Defective Premises Act 1972
  3. 3 Whether the adjudication was unfair due to inequality of arms or failure to consider material defence (natural justice)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the dispute had crystallised prior to adjudication as Ardmore's continued requests for further information and failure to respond amounted to a non-admission. The adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the DPA 1972 claim as the adjudication clause should be interpreted broadly in line with Fiona Trust and subsequent authorities. There was no breach of natural justice as Ardmore had sufficient notice and opportunity to respond. Accordingly, there was no real prospect of success in Ardmore's grounds of defence, and summary judgment was granted enforcing the adjudicator's decision.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the claimant enforcing the adjudication decision.

Orders

  • Ardmore Construction Limited to pay BDW Trading Limited £14,454,914.45 in damages.
  • Ardmore Construction Limited to pay £84,329.00 for the Adjudicator's costs and expenses.