C Spencer Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd [2021] EWHC 1284 (TCC) (31 March 2021)

C Spencer Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd [2021] EWHC 1284 (TCC) (31 March 2021)

The adjudicator was validly appointed as notice was sufficiently given by email; simultaneous notification is permissible under the contract. MW's counterclaims were not properly advanced as set-off and lacked substantiation, so the adjudicator was entitled to value them at nil for the purpose of correcting the payment notice. The adjudicator had jurisdiction to order release of retention monies, as the contractual machinery had broken down and MW had previously accepted jurisdiction in prior adjudication. None of MW's jurisdictional defences had merit.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1284 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: C. Spencer Limited; Defendant: MW High Tech Projects UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / High Court, Technology and Construction Court, Post Adjudication Enforcement
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the claimant
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Hybrid Contracts, Jurisdiction, Retention Monies, Payment Notices, Set Off and Counterclaim
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Enforcement Hybrid Contracts Jurisdiction Retention Monies Payment Notices Set Off and Counterclaim

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

Parties

C. Spencer Limited

Claimant

MW High Tech Projects UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / High Court, Technology and Construction Court, Post Adjudication Enforcement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator was validly appointed under the contractual provisions
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator impermissibly valued counterclaims relating to excluded operations
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to order release of retention monies covering included and excluded operations

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator was validly appointed as notice was sufficiently given by email; simultaneous notification is permissible under the contract. MW's counterclaims were not properly advanced as set-off and lacked substantiation, so the adjudicator was entitled to value them at nil for the purpose of correcting the payment notice. The adjudicator had jurisdiction to order release of retention monies, as the contractual machinery had broken down and MW had previously accepted jurisdiction in prior adjudication. None of MW's jurisdictional defences had merit.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the claimant

Orders

  • MW High Tech Projects UK Limited to pay C. Spencer Limited £3,397,029.03 within seven days
  • MW High Tech Projects UK Limited to pay interest of £179,000