Harding (t/a M J Harding Contractors) v Gary George Leslie Paice Kim Springall

Harding (t/a M J Harding Contractors) v Gary George Leslie Paice Kim Springall

The adjudicator in the third adjudication did not determine the proper value of the contractor’s account but only that, in the absence of a valid Pay Less notice, the sum stated was payable. Therefore, the employer is not precluded from seeking a determination of the proper sum due in a subsequent adjudication or litigation. Paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme does not bar the fourth adjudication as the dispute is not the same as that decided previously.

Parties
Claimant: Matthew Harding (t/a M J Harding Contractors); Defendant: Gary George Leslie Paice; Defendant: Kim Springall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application (construction Contract) / Judgment on Application for Injunction to Restrain Adjudication
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Pay Less Notice, Termination of Contract, Interim Injunctions
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Pay Less Notice Termination of Contract Interim Injunctions

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Harding (t/a M J Harding Contractors)

Claimant

Gary George Leslie Paice

Defendant

Kim Springall

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application (construction Contract) / Judgment on Application for Injunction to Restrain Adjudication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants are entitled to proceed with a fourth adjudication on the same or substantially the same dispute as a previous adjudication
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator in the fourth adjudication has jurisdiction under paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme for Construction Contracts
  3. 3 Whether failure to serve a valid Pay Less notice forever precludes the employer from challenging the contractor’s account

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator in the third adjudication did not determine the proper value of the contractor’s account but only that, in the absence of a valid Pay Less notice, the sum stated was payable. Therefore, the employer is not precluded from seeking a determination of the proper sum due in a subsequent adjudication or litigation. Paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme does not bar the fourth adjudication as the dispute is not the same as that decided previously.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Interim injunction discharged forthwith
  • Application for injunction refused