CNO Plant Hire Ltd v Caldwell Construction Limited

CNO Plant Hire Ltd v Caldwell Construction Limited

The court refused to permit a set off because the Defendant had not issued enforcement proceedings in respect of the second adjudication, and the works in both payment applications were the same, making it the same payment cycle. The Defendant failed to issue a payment notice or pay less notice, so the notified sum was due. Allowing set off would undermine the policy of swift enforcement of adjudicators’ decisions.

Parties
Claimant: C. N. O Plant Hire Ltd; Defendant: Caldwell Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Dispute) / Summary Judgment Application to Enforce Adjudication Decision
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the Claimant; enforcement of the first adjudication decision ordered; set off refused.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Set Off in Adjudication, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Payment Notices, Pay Less Notices
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Enforcement Set Off in Adjudication Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Payment Notices Pay Less Notices

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. N. O Plant Hire Ltd

Claimant

Caldwell Construction Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Dispute) / Summary Judgment Application to Enforce Adjudication Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should enforce the first adjudication decision in favour of the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the court should permit a set off based on a second adjudication decision
  3. 3 Whether the second adjudication concerned the same payment cycle as the first

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to permit a set off because the Defendant had not issued enforcement proceedings in respect of the second adjudication, and the works in both payment applications were the same, making it the same payment cycle. The Defendant failed to issue a payment notice or pay less notice, so the notified sum was due. Allowing set off would undermine the policy of swift enforcement of adjudicators’ decisions.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the Claimant; enforcement of the first adjudication decision ordered; set off refused.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay the Claimant £253,425.56 plus interest of £2,679.88 and daily interest at £92.00 until payment.
  • Defendant to pay the adjudicator’s fees of £8,190.00 plus VAT.