Westshield Civil Engineering Ltd & Anor v Buckingham Group Contracting Ltd

Westshield Civil Engineering Ltd & Anor v Buckingham Group Contracting Ltd

The adjudicator's decision is not final and binding because Buckingham commenced proceedings by issuing a claim form within the contractual time limit. However, the decision is binding pro tem and enforceable, and there are no grounds for a stay of execution as Civil Engineering's financial position was known at the time of contracting and WL has guaranteed any liabilities. The adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the identity of the sub-contractor, and Buckingham is not permitted to challenge this in enforcement proceedings.

Parties
Claimant: Westshield Civil Engineering Limited; Claimant: Westshield Limited; Defendant: Buckingham Group Contracting Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Dispute (adjudication Enforcement) / Judgment After Summary Enforcement Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant (enforcement granted)
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Stay of Execution, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Commencement of Proceedings, Approbation and Reprobation
Construction Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Stay of Execution Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Commencement of Proceedings Approbation and Reprobation

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

Parties

Westshield Civil Engineering Limited

Claimant

Westshield Limited

Claimant

Buckingham Group Contracting Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Dispute (adjudication Enforcement) / Judgment After Summary Enforcement Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator's decision is enforceable given the commencement of proceedings by Buckingham
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the identity of the sub-contractor
  3. 3 Whether a stay of execution should be granted due to the financial status of the successful party

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator's decision is not final and binding because Buckingham commenced proceedings by issuing a claim form within the contractual time limit. However, the decision is binding pro tem and enforceable, and there are no grounds for a stay of execution as Civil Engineering's financial position was known at the time of contracting and WL has guaranteed any liabilities. The adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the identity of the sub-contractor, and Buckingham is not permitted to challenge this in enforcement proceedings.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant (enforcement granted)

Orders

  • Judgment in favour of Civil Engineering in the sum of £147,164.66, VAT payable only if registered
  • No declaration that the adjudicator's decision is finally binding