Caledonian Modular Ltd v Mar City Developments Ltd

Caledonian Modular Ltd v Mar City Developments Ltd

The documents sent on 13 February 2015 were not a valid application for interim payment or a payee’s notice. They did not state that they were a new application, were not labelled as such, and were not treated as such by either party at the time. The claimant’s next valid application was made on 19 March 2015 and was met with a valid payless notice. Therefore, the adjudicator’s decision in the second adjudication was wrong and is not enforceable.

Parties
Claimant: Caledonian Modular Ltd; Defendant: Mar City Developments Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Construction Contract Dispute (adjudication Enforcement) / Judgment on Enforcement Application and Counterclaim for Declaration
Outcome
Claim for enforcement of adjudicator’s decision in second adjudication dismissed; declaration granted in favour of defendant
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Payment Notices, Payless Notices, Scheme for Construction Contracts, Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Enforcement Payment Notices Payless Notices Scheme for Construction Contracts Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

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

Parties

Caledonian Modular Ltd

Claimant

Mar City Developments Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Construction Contract Dispute (adjudication Enforcement) / Judgment on Enforcement Application and Counterclaim for Declaration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents sent on 13 February 2015 constituted a valid application for interim payment or payee’s notice under the contract and statutory scheme
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator’s decision in the second adjudication should be enforced

Ratio Decidendi

The documents sent on 13 February 2015 were not a valid application for interim payment or a payee’s notice. They did not state that they were a new application, were not labelled as such, and were not treated as such by either party at the time. The claimant’s next valid application was made on 19 March 2015 and was met with a valid payless notice. Therefore, the adjudicator’s decision in the second adjudication was wrong and is not enforceable.

Court Disposition

Claim for enforcement of adjudicator’s decision in second adjudication dismissed; declaration granted in favour of defendant

Orders

  • Declaration that the documents of 13 February 2015 were not a valid application for an interim payment or a valid payee’s notice
  • Declaration that the adjudicator’s decision in the second adjudication was wrong and is not enforceable