Allen Wilson Shopfitters v Buckingham [2005] EWHC 1165 (TCC) (27 May 2005)

Allen Wilson Shopfitters v Buckingham [2005] EWHC 1165 (TCC) (27 May 2005)

The adjudicator had jurisdiction because the contract, evidenced by the first letter of intent and incorporating the JCT 1998 terms, expressly provided for adjudication of disputes, including those relating to Valuations 12 and 13. The residential occupier exclusion under the 1996 Act did not apply because the adjudicator's jurisdiction derived from the contract, not the Act. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 did not render the adjudication clause unenforceable as the contract terms were proposed by the defendant's professional agents. Termination of the contract did not affect accrued rights to payment.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1165 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Allen Wilson Shopfitters & Builders Limited; Defendant: Mr. Anthony Buckingham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application (cpr Part 24) to Enforce Adjudicator's Decision / Judgment at First Instance in the Technology & Construction Court
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the claimant.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Summary Judgment, Residential Occupier Exclusion, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Summary Judgment Residential Occupier Exclusion Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allen Wilson Shopfitters & Builders Limited

Claimant

Mr. Anthony Buckingham

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application (cpr Part 24) to Enforce Adjudicator's Decision / Judgment at First Instance in the Technology & Construction Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide the dispute under the contract
  2. 2 Whether the contract incorporated an adjudication agreement
  3. 3 Whether the residential occupier exclusion under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 applied

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator had jurisdiction because the contract, evidenced by the first letter of intent and incorporating the JCT 1998 terms, expressly provided for adjudication of disputes, including those relating to Valuations 12 and 13. The residential occupier exclusion under the 1996 Act did not apply because the adjudicator's jurisdiction derived from the contract, not the Act. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 did not render the adjudication clause unenforceable as the contract terms were proposed by the defendant's professional agents. Termination of the contract did not affect accrued rights to payment.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the claimant.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay £50,401.35 to the claimant in respect of Valuations 12 and 13.
  • Defendant to pay interest as agreed by the parties under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts Interest Act 1998.