Treasure & Son Ltd v Dawes

Treasure & Son Ltd v Dawes

The adjudicator's decision is enforceable as the alleged oral variation did not affect the jurisdiction under a contractual adjudication agreement, there was no contractual requirement for the decision to be signed, and there was insufficient evidence to justify a stay of execution based on the claimant's financial position.

Parties
Claimant: Treasure & Son Limited; Defendant: Martin Dawes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application (enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision) / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the claimant
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Oral Variation of Contract, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Requirement for Signature on Adjudicator's Decision, Stay of Execution
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Oral Variation of Contract Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Requirement for Signature on Adjudicator's Decision Stay of Execution

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Treasure & Son Limited

Claimant

Martin Dawes

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application (enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision) / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does an oral variation of a written construction contract deprive the adjudicator of jurisdiction?
  2. 2 Is an adjudicator's decision unenforceable if not signed?
  3. 3 Should a stay of execution be granted due to the claimant's alleged inability to repay?

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator's decision is enforceable as the alleged oral variation did not affect the jurisdiction under a contractual adjudication agreement, there was no contractual requirement for the decision to be signed, and there was insufficient evidence to justify a stay of execution based on the claimant's financial position.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the claimant

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant £1,222,818.05 (including principal, VAT, interest, and adjudicator's fees)
  • Interest to accrue as ordered by the adjudicator from 4th September 2007