Grovedeck Ltd v. Capital Demolition Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 139 (24th February, 2000)

Grovedeck Ltd v. Capital Demolition Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 139 (24th February, 2000)

The oral contracts between the parties were not deemed by statute to be contracts in writing, and Part II of the Act did not apply. The adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to make the award, and the application for enforcement was dismissed.

Citation
[2000] EWHC Technology 139
Parties
Claimant: Grovedeck; Defendant: Capital
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Application for Enforcement of Adjudicator's Award / Judgment on Summary Enforcement and Jurisdiction
Outcome
application dismissed; action dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Oral Contracts, Statutory Interpretation, Jurisdiction
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Oral Contracts Statutory Interpretation Jurisdiction

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grovedeck

Claimant

Capital

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Enforcement of Adjudicator's Award / Judgment on Summary Enforcement and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Part II of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 apply to oral construction contracts?
  2. 2 Does an exchange of written submissions in adjudication proceedings constitute a contract in writing under section 107(5) of the Act?
  3. 3 Can more than one contract be referred in a single adjudication?

Ratio Decidendi

The oral contracts between the parties were not deemed by statute to be contracts in writing, and Part II of the Act did not apply. The adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to make the award, and the application for enforcement was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; action dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants to pay defendants’ costs of the action
  • Defendants’ costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed