HS Works Ltd v Enterprise Managed Services Ltd [2009] EWHC 729 (TCC) (08 April 2009)

HS Works Ltd v Enterprise Managed Services Ltd [2009] EWHC 729 (TCC) (08 April 2009)

Both adjudication decisions were valid and enforceable. The first adjudicator acted within jurisdiction by deciding the dispute as referred—namely, the effect of the absence of a valid withholding notice after the final account submission. The second adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the proper valuation of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 729 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: HS Works Limited; Defendant: Enterprise Managed Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Applications to Enforce Adjudication Decisions / High Court, Technology and Construction Court, Post Adjudication Enforcement
Outcome
Both adjudication decisions enforced; sums payable under each to be set off against each other.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Withholding Notices, Contra Charges, Natural Justice, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Final Account Valuation, Set Off Between Adjudication Decisions
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Withholding Notices Contra Charges Natural Justice Jurisdiction of Adjudicator +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HS Works Limited

Claimant

Enterprise Managed Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Applications to Enforce Adjudication Decisions / High Court, Technology and Construction Court, Post Adjudication Enforcement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first adjudicator exceeded or failed to fulfil his jurisdiction or breached natural justice by not addressing the merits and quantum of contra charges
  2. 2 Whether the second adjudicator had jurisdiction and complied with natural justice
  3. 3 How to give effect to two potentially conflicting adjudication decisions

Ratio Decidendi

Both adjudication decisions were valid and enforceable. The first adjudicator acted within jurisdiction by deciding the dispute as referred—namely, the effect of the absence of a valid withholding notice after the final account submission. The second adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the proper valuation of the final account, and the process was not so unfair as to breach natural justice. Both decisions must be enforced, with the sums payable under each set off against each other as appropriate.

Court Disposition

Both adjudication decisions enforced; sums payable under each to be set off against each other.

Orders

  • HS Works Limited's application to enforce the first adjudication decision is granted.
  • Enterprise Managed Services Limited's application to enforce the second adjudication decision is granted.