Engie Fabricom (UK) Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd

Engie Fabricom (UK) Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd

The primary activity at the Energy Works Hull facility is power generation, not waste treatment. The Sub-contract works are therefore excluded from 'construction operations' under section 105(2)(c)(i) of the 1996 Act. As a result, the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction and the adjudication awards are unenforceable.

Parties
Claimant: ENGIE Fabricom (UK) Limited; Defendant: MW High Tech Projects UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Dispute) / Trial Judgment on Consolidated Claims to Enforce Adjudication Awards
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Adjudication, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Construction Operations Definition, Power Generation Exclusion, Waste Management
Construction Law Contract Law Statutory Adjudication Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Construction Operations Definition Power Generation Exclusion Waste Management

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ENGIE Fabricom (UK) Limited

Claimant

MW High Tech Projects UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Dispute) / Trial Judgment on Consolidated Claims to Enforce Adjudication Awards

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary activity at the Energy Works Hull site is power generation or waste treatment for purposes of section 105(2)(c) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Sub-contract works constitute 'construction operations' under the 1996 Act
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the disputes

Ratio Decidendi

The primary activity at the Energy Works Hull facility is power generation, not waste treatment. The Sub-contract works are therefore excluded from 'construction operations' under section 105(2)(c)(i) of the 1996 Act. As a result, the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction and the adjudication awards are unenforceable.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • Fabricom’s claims to enforce the adjudication awards are dismissed
  • The adjudication awards are declared unenforceable