Gotch & Anor v Enelco Ltd [2015] EWHC 1802 (TCC) (03 July 2015)

Gotch & Anor v Enelco Ltd [2015] EWHC 1802 (TCC) (03 July 2015)

The application for a declaration regarding the right to adjudicate was unnecessary and disproportionate as there was no imminent threat of adjudication; the proceedings should be stayed and continued as if started under Part 7, with directions for resolving substantive issues.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1802 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Simon Gotch; Claimant: Susan Linda Gotch; Defendant: Enelco Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (cpr) for Declaratory Relief / Application for Directions and Case Management Conference
Outcome
Application for directions stayed; proceedings to continue as if under Part 7; specific costs orders made.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under Construction Contracts, Residential Occupier Exemption, Contract Interpretation, Case Management, Costs Orders
Construction Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Under Construction Contracts Residential Occupier Exemption Contract Interpretation Case Management Costs Orders

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

Part 8 Claim (cpr) for Declaratory Relief / Application for Directions and Case Management Conference

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 Whether the application for declaratory relief was necessary or proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a declaration regarding the right to adjudicate was unnecessary and disproportionate as there was no imminent threat of adjudication; the proceedings should be stayed and continued as if started under Part 7, with directions for resolving substantive issues.

Court Disposition

Application for directions stayed; proceedings to continue as if under Part 7; specific costs orders made.

Orders

  • Claimants to have costs of issuing proceedings (excluding application notice costs), payable by Defendant on standard basis, subject to stay being lifted.
  • Claimants to pay Defendant's costs of the action between 17 April and 21 May 2015 on an indemnity basis.