Lobo v Corich & Anor [2017] EWHC 1438 (TCC) (21 June 2017)

Lobo v Corich & Anor [2017] EWHC 1438 (TCC) (21 June 2017)

The adjudication and court proceedings were properly served on the defendant at his last known and most reliable address and by email as requested; the defendant's failure to engage was a result of his own conscious decision not to review correspondence. There was no breach of natural justice or procedural unfairness. The applications to set aside the adjudication decision, summary judgment, and charging order are refused.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1438 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Emile Lobo; Defendant: Mr Robert Corich; Claimant: Mr Robert Corich; Defendant: Mr Emile Lobo
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Post Judgment Applications to Continue Charging Order and to Set Aside Adjudication Decision, Summary Judgment, and Charging Order
Outcome
Applications by defendant to set aside adjudication decision, summary judgment, and charging order refused; claimant's application to continue charging order granted.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Service of Documents, Natural Justice, Summary Judgment, Charging Order
Construction Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Service of Documents Natural Justice Summary Judgment Charging Order

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

Parties

Mr Emile Lobo

Claimant

Mr Robert Corich

Defendant

Mr Robert Corich

Claimant

Mr Emile Lobo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Post Judgment Applications to Continue Charging Order and to Set Aside Adjudication Decision, Summary Judgment, and Charging Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudication decision was reached in breach of natural justice
  2. 2 Whether the adjudication and court proceedings were properly served on the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the summary judgment and charging order should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudication and court proceedings were properly served on the defendant at his last known and most reliable address and by email as requested; the defendant's failure to engage was a result of his own conscious decision not to review correspondence. There was no breach of natural justice or procedural unfairness. The applications to set aside the adjudication decision, summary judgment, and charging order are refused.

Court Disposition

Applications by defendant to set aside adjudication decision, summary judgment, and charging order refused; claimant's application to continue charging order granted.

Orders

  • Adjudication decision stands.
  • Summary judgment stands.