F W Cook Ltd v. Shimizu (UK) Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 152 (4th February, 2000)

F W Cook Ltd v. Shimizu (UK) Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 152 (4th February, 2000)

The adjudicator's decision did not require immediate payment of the gross sum claimed by Cook but only determined certain elements of the final account. The sums identified were only payable if otherwise due under the subcontract, and Shimizu's interpretation was correct. There was at least a realistic prospect of Shimizu succeeding in its defence, so summary judgment was refused.

Citation
[2000] EWHC Technology 152
Parties
Claimant: Cook; Defendant: Shimizu
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application to Enforce Adjudicator's Decision / Application for Summary Judgment Under Part 24 CPR
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Summary Judgment, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Interpretation of Adjudicator's Decision
Construction Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Summary Judgment Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Interpretation 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cook

Claimant

Shimizu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application to Enforce Adjudicator's Decision / Application for Summary Judgment Under Part 24 CPR

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator's decision is enforceable as a sum immediately payable to Cook
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by awarding sums not referred for decision
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of the notice of adjudication and the adjudicator's decision

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator's decision did not require immediate payment of the gross sum claimed by Cook but only determined certain elements of the final account. The sums identified were only payable if otherwise due under the subcontract, and Shimizu's interpretation was correct. There was at least a realistic prospect of Shimizu succeeding in its defence, so summary judgment was refused.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Cook's application for summary judgment is dismissed