Engie Fabricom UK Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd [2019] EWHC 1876 (TCC) (17 July 2019)

Engie Fabricom UK Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd [2019] EWHC 1876 (TCC) (17 July 2019)

The Defendant has a real prospect of success in arguing that the primary activity of the site is power generation, which would exclude the works from the definition of construction operations under the Act and render the adjudicator's decision unenforceable. Further evidence is required and the matter is not suitable for summary judgment.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1876 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: ENGIE Fabricom UK Limited; Defendant: MW High Tech Projects UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application (enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision) / Application for Summary Judgment Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for summary judgment refused, conditional on Defendant paying sum into court.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction Under Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Summary Judgment, Construction Contract Definition, Section 105(2)(c) Exclusion
Construction Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction Under Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 Summary Judgment Construction Contract Definition Section 105(2)(c) Exclusion

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

ENGIE Fabricom UK Limited

Claimant

MW High Tech Projects UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application (enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision) / Application for Summary Judgment Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the works fall within the definition of 'construction operations' under the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the dispute
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted to enforce the adjudicator's decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant has a real prospect of success in arguing that the primary activity of the site is power generation, which would exclude the works from the definition of construction operations under the Act and render the adjudicator's decision unenforceable. Further evidence is required and the matter is not suitable for summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment refused, conditional on Defendant paying sum into court.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay £41,766.30 into court within 21 days as a condition of refusal of summary judgment.
  • Directions for trial to be agreed or determined by the court.