Complete Ceiling and Partitioning Systems Limited v DE1 Limited

Complete Ceiling and Partitioning Systems Limited v DE1 Limited

Where a Claimant's statutory accounts show clear insolvency, and the Defendant reasonably requests information to assess the likelihood of repayment, the Claimant's refusal to provide such information prior to proceedings is contrary to the Overriding Objective. Although there is no compulsion to disclose, the Claimant's conduct justified no order as to costs, as the proceedings and applications could have been avoided had the information been provided earlier.

Parties
Claimant: Complete Ceiling and Partitioning Systems Limited; Defendant: DE1 Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Adjudication Enforcement / Post Hearing Judgment on Costs
Outcome
No order as to costs; Claimant entitled to enforcement but no costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Stay of Execution, Costs Orders, Insolvency, Overriding Objective
Construction Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Stay of Execution Costs Orders Insolvency Overriding Objective

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Complete Ceiling and Partitioning Systems Limited

Claimant

DE1 Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Adjudication Enforcement / Post Hearing Judgment on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was obliged to provide financial information prior to enforcement proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant was entitled to a stay of enforcement based on the Claimant's solvency
  3. 3 Appropriate costs order given the parties' conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Where a Claimant's statutory accounts show clear insolvency, and the Defendant reasonably requests information to assess the likelihood of repayment, the Claimant's refusal to provide such information prior to proceedings is contrary to the Overriding Objective. Although there is no compulsion to disclose, the Claimant's conduct justified no order as to costs, as the proceedings and applications could have been avoided had the information been provided earlier.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; Claimant entitled to enforcement but no costs awarded.

Orders

  • No order for costs on either application.
  • Defendant to pay the Adjudicator’s award and fees as previously agreed.