Estor Ltd v Multifit (UK) Ltd

Estor Ltd v Multifit (UK) Ltd

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 only on condition that Estor pays £35,000 into court. The adjudicator's inclusion of fees for the abortive adjudication was not an excess of jurisdiction, and even if it was, that part would be severable and not affect enforceability of the rest of the decision.

Parties
Claimant: Estor Limited; Defendant: Multifit (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction/contract) / Summary Judgment Application and Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Leave to defend granted to Estor on the issue of contract formation, conditional on payment of £35,000 into court. Summary judgment refused on that issue. Directions for a quick trial to resolve the matter. Costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Summary Judgment, Written Construction Contracts, HGCRA 1996 Section 107
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Summary Judgment Written Construction Contracts HGCRA 1996 Section 107

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

Civil (construction/contract) / Summary Judgment Application and Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a construction contract in writing between Estor and Multifit for purposes of the HGCRA 1996
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the award
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction regarding his fees for an abortive adjudication

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 only on condition that Estor pays £35,000 into court. The adjudicator's inclusion of fees for the abortive adjudication was not an excess of jurisdiction, and even if it was, that part would be severable and not affect enforceability of the rest of the decision.

Court Disposition

Leave to defend granted to Estor on the issue of contract formation, conditional on payment of £35,000 into court. Summary judgment refused on that issue. Directions for a quick trial to resolve the matter. Costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Estor to pay £35,000 into court by 28 August 2009 as a condition of leave to defend.
  • If not paid, judgment for Multifit as counterclaimed.