Estor Ltd v Multifit (UK) Ltd [2009] EWHC 2108 (TCC) (12 August 2009)

Estor Ltd v Multifit (UK) Ltd [2009] EWHC 2108 (TCC) (12 August 2009)

There is a realistic prospect that Estor may establish at trial that it was not the contracting party with Multifit, so summary judgment is refused on that issue, but leave to defend is conditional on Estor paying £35,000 into court. The adjudicator's inclusion of abortive adjudication fees was within his discretion and does not affect enforceability of the remainder of the decision.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2108 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Estor Limited; Defendant: Multifit (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Dispute (summary Judgment and Declaratory Relief) / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment and Leave to Defend
Outcome
Conditional leave to defend granted to Estor on payment of £35,000 into court; otherwise, summary judgment for Multifit if not paid by deadline.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Written Construction Contracts, Summary Judgment, Section 107 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Written Construction Contracts Summary Judgment Section 107 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Estor Limited

Claimant

Multifit (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Dispute (summary Judgment and Declaratory Relief) / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment and Leave to Defend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a construction contract in writing between Estor and Multifit for the purposes of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA)
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the award
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator's decision on costs and abortive adjudication fees was within jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

There is a realistic prospect that Estor may establish at trial that it was not the contracting party with Multifit, so summary judgment is refused on that issue, but leave to defend is conditional on Estor paying £35,000 into court. The adjudicator's inclusion of abortive adjudication fees was within his discretion and does not affect enforceability of the remainder of the decision.

Court Disposition

Conditional leave to defend granted to Estor on payment of £35,000 into court; otherwise, summary judgment for Multifit if not paid by deadline.

Orders

  • Estor granted leave to defend on the issue of contract identity, conditional on payment of £35,000 into court by 28 August 2009.
  • If payment not made, judgment for Multifit as counterclaimed.