Purton (t/a Richwood Interiors) v Kilker Projects Ltd [2015] EWHC 2624 (TCC) (16 September 2015)

Purton (t/a Richwood Interiors) v Kilker Projects Ltd [2015] EWHC 2624 (TCC) (16 September 2015)

There was a binding construction contract between the parties, evidenced by substantial performance and mutual payments. The adjudicator had jurisdiction regardless of minor mischaracterisations of the contract's terms, as any contract found would have triggered the statutory adjudication scheme and the substantive outcome would not differ. Kilker had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, so summary judgment was appropriate.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2624 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Rob Purton t/a Richwood Interiors; Defendant: Kilker Projects Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Application to Enforce Adjudication Decision (summary Judgment) / High Court (tcc) Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the claimant.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Existence of Contract, Summary Judgment, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Quantum Meruit
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Existence of Contract Summary Judgment Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Quantum Meruit

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

Parties

Rob Purton t/a Richwood Interiors

Claimant

Kilker Projects Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Enforce Adjudication Decision (summary Judgment) / High Court (tcc) Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding construction contract between the parties
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the award
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted to enforce the adjudicator's decision

Ratio Decidendi

There was a binding construction contract between the parties, evidenced by substantial performance and mutual payments. The adjudicator had jurisdiction regardless of minor mischaracterisations of the contract's terms, as any contract found would have triggered the statutory adjudication scheme and the substantive outcome would not differ. Kilker had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, so summary judgment was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the claimant.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant £151,407.00 plus interest at 8% from 19 May 2015 to date and continuing at the judgment rate until payment or further order.
  • Defendant to pay claimant's costs of the action to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.