Malcolm Charles Contracts Ltd v Crispin & Anor

Malcolm Charles Contracts Ltd v Crispin & Anor

A binding contract on the terms of the JCT HOO form, including an adjudication agreement, was formed between the parties on 9th August 2011 (alternatively on 7th September 2011) as evidenced by the minutes, conduct, and subsequent actions; therefore, the Adjudicator had jurisdiction and the decision is enforceable.

Parties
Claimant: Malcolm Charles Contracts Limited; Defendant: Mr Charles Julian Crispin; Defendant: Mrs Zhang Ya Yu
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Contract Dispute) / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; Adjudicator's decision enforceable.
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Adjudication, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision, Residential Occupier Exception
Contract Law Construction Law Formation of Contract Adjudication Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision Residential Occupier Exception

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

Parties

Malcolm Charles Contracts Limited

Claimant

Mr Charles Julian Crispin

Defendant

Mrs Zhang Ya Yu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Contract Dispute) / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract was formed between the parties on 9th August 2011 or upon handing over of keys on 7th September 2011
  2. 2 Whether the contract incorporated an adjudication agreement under the JCT HOO form
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the decision

Ratio Decidendi

A binding contract on the terms of the JCT HOO form, including an adjudication agreement, was formed between the parties on 9th August 2011 (alternatively on 7th September 2011) as evidenced by the minutes, conduct, and subsequent actions; therefore, the Adjudicator had jurisdiction and the decision is enforceable.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Adjudicator's decision enforceable.

Orders

  • The Adjudicator's decision is enforced.