Cain Electrical Ltd v Cox (t/a Pennine Control Systems) [2011] EWHC 2681 (TCC) (24 May 2011)

Cain Electrical Ltd v Cox (t/a Pennine Control Systems) [2011] EWHC 2681 (TCC) (24 May 2011)

The contract between CEL and PCL was made by an exchange of communications in writing, and CEL no longer relied on any oral terms. Both parties now accepted that all material terms were in writing. There was no real prospect of PCL establishing that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction. Therefore, summary judgment...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2681 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Cain Electrical Limited; Defendant: Richard Cox t/a Pennine Control Systems
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Summary Judgment to Enforce Adjudicator's Decision / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the claimant.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Written Construction Contracts, Section 107 Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Summary Judgment
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Written Construction Contracts Section 107 Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 Summary Judgment

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Cain Electrical Limited

Claimant

Richard Cox t/a Pennine Control Systems

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Summary Judgment to Enforce Adjudicator's Decision / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction under section 107 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to make a binding decision where some contract terms were alleged to be oral
  2. 2 Whether the contract was wholly in writing for the purposes of the Act
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted for the unpaid balance of the adjudicator's decision

Ratio Decidendi

The contract between CEL and PCL was made by an exchange of communications in writing, and CEL no longer relied on any oral terms. Both parties now accepted that all material terms were in writing. There was no real prospect of PCL establishing that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction. Therefore, summary judgment was granted for the unpaid balance of the adjudicator's decision and his fees.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the claimant.

Orders

  • Judgment for the unpaid balance of the adjudicator's decision (invoice 4 and associated sums)
  • Judgment for the amount of the adjudicator's fees