M Hart Construction Ltd & Anor v Ideal Response Group Ltd (Rev 1)

M Hart Construction Ltd & Anor v Ideal Response Group Ltd (Rev 1)

Ideal has a real prospect of defending the claims on the basis that there was no novation of the underlying contracts to MHCL; the evidence as to novation is contested and cannot be resolved summarily. However, as to PKM, there is no dispute that PKM was party to a contract with Ideal, and the misdescription in the Notice of Intention to Refer does not deprive the adjudicator of jurisdiction. Summary judgment is granted for PKM for the sums awarded by the adjudicator.

Parties
Claimant: M Hart Construction Limited; Claimant: P K Maintenance Limited; Defendant: Ideal Response Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Dispute (summary Judgment Application) / High Court Judgment on Enforcement of Adjudicators’ Decisions
Outcome
Summary judgment refused for MHCL; summary judgment granted for PKM
Legal Topics
Novation, Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdictional Challenge, Summary Judgment, Tri Partite Contracts
Contract Law Construction Law Civil Procedure Novation Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdictional Challenge Summary Judgment Tri Partite Contracts

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M Hart Construction Limited

Claimant

P K Maintenance Limited

Claimant

Ideal Response Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Dispute (summary Judgment Application) / High Court Judgment on Enforcement of Adjudicators’ Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a novation of the original contracts to M Hart Construction Limited (MHCL)
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicators had jurisdiction to decide the disputes referred to them
  3. 3 Whether the Notices of Intention to Refer were sufficiently accurate to confer jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Ideal has a real prospect of defending the claims on the basis that there was no novation of the underlying contracts to MHCL; the evidence as to novation is contested and cannot be resolved summarily. However, as to PKM, there is no dispute that PKM was party to a contract with Ideal, and the misdescription in the Notice of Intention to Refer does not deprive the adjudicator of jurisdiction. Summary judgment is granted for PKM for the sums awarded by the adjudicator.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused for MHCL; summary judgment granted for PKM

Orders

  • Summary judgment for PKM for the sums awarded by the adjudicator in the PKM Defects adjudication together with interest to be assessed.
  • No summary judgment for MHCL; claims dismissed as Ideal has a real prospect of defending on the issue of novation.