Systech International Ltd v PC Harrington Contractors Ltd [2011] EWHC 2722 (TCC) (27 October 2011)

Systech International Ltd v PC Harrington Contractors Ltd [2011] EWHC 2722 (TCC) (27 October 2011)

There was not a total failure of consideration because the adjudicator performed substantial services under the contract, including procedural management and consideration of submissions, even though the decision was ultimately unenforceable. The contract entitled the adjudicator (and thus Systech) to payment for services rendered, and the unenforceability of the decision did not negate the obligation to pay fees absent bad faith or dishonesty.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2722 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Systech International Limited; Defendant: PC Harrington Contractors Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Claim for Adjudicator's Fees / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed for adjudicator's fees; no total failure of consideration.
Legal Topics
Adjudicator's Fees, Total Failure of Consideration, Natural Justice, Enforceability of Adjudicator's Decision
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudicator's Fees Total Failure of Consideration Natural Justice Enforceability of Adjudicator's Decision

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Systech International Limited

Claimant

PC Harrington Contractors Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim for Adjudicator's Fees / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is an adjudicator entitled to recover fees where the adjudicator's decision is unenforceable due to breach of natural justice?
  2. 2 Does a total failure of consideration arise in such circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

There was not a total failure of consideration because the adjudicator performed substantial services under the contract, including procedural management and consideration of submissions, even though the decision was ultimately unenforceable. The contract entitled the adjudicator (and thus Systech) to payment for services rendered, and the unenforceability of the decision did not negate the obligation to pay fees absent bad faith or dishonesty.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed for adjudicator's fees; no total failure of consideration.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Systech £22,000 plus VAT for adjudicator's fees.