Gotch & Anor v Enelco Ltd

Gotch & Anor v Enelco Ltd

No useful purpose would be served by determining the right to adjudicate while the Defendant had no current intention to refer the dispute to adjudication and parties were pursuing alternative dispute resolution. The Claimants' application was stayed and proceedings continued as if started under Part 7.

Parties
Claimant: Simon Gotch; Claimant: Susan Linda Gotch; Defendant: Enelco Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Case Management Conference and Application for Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Claimants' application stayed; proceedings to continue as if started under Part 7; directions given for future conduct; costs orders made.
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Residential Occupier Exemption, Contract Interpretation, Costs Management
Construction Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Residential Occupier Exemption Contract Interpretation Costs Management

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Gotch

Claimant

Susan Linda Gotch

Claimant

Enelco Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Case Management Conference and Application for Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the building contract contained an express or implied right to refer disputes to adjudication
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants were residential occupiers within the meaning of section 106 of the Housing, Grants, Regeneration and Construction Act 1996
  3. 3 Appropriate conduct and costs management in litigation

Ratio Decidendi

No useful purpose would be served by determining the right to adjudicate while the Defendant had no current intention to refer the dispute to adjudication and parties were pursuing alternative dispute resolution. The Claimants' application was stayed and proceedings continued as if started under Part 7.

Court Disposition

Claimants' application stayed; proceedings to continue as if started under Part 7; directions given for future conduct; costs orders made.

Orders

  • Claimants to have costs of issuing proceedings (excluding application notice), paid by Defendant on standard basis.
  • Claimants to pay Defendant’s costs of the action between 17 April and 21 May 2015 on indemnity basis.