RMC Building & Civil Engineering Ltd v UK Construction Ltd (Rev 1) [2016] EWHC 241 (TCC) (15 February 2016)

RMC Building & Civil Engineering Ltd v UK Construction Ltd (Rev 1) [2016] EWHC 241 (TCC) (15 February 2016)

The adjudicator was properly appointed as there was no evidence the Letter of Appointment was sent to RMC; Application No 8 was not withdrawn and the sum claimed became due as no pay less notice was served; without prejudice negotiations could not be relied upon by UKC; UKC failed to prove the contract price for the statutory cap; UKC did not accept any repudiatory breach by RMC; and there was no basis for adjourning or staying enforcement of the judgment.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 241 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: RMC Building & Civil Engineering Limited; Defendant: UK Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Summary Judgment to Enforce Adjudicator's Decision / Judgment After Hearing of Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment for the claimant (RMC) as claimed; application for stay of enforcement refused.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Payment Notices, Without Prejudice Communications, Repudiatory Breach, Stay of Enforcement
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Enforcement Payment Notices Without Prejudice Communications Repudiatory Breach Stay of Enforcement

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RMC Building & Civil Engineering Limited

Claimant

UK Construction Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Summary Judgment to Enforce Adjudicator's Decision / Judgment After Hearing of Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator was properly appointed
  2. 2 Whether there was a dispute at the time of the Notice of Adjudication and whether Application No 8 was withdrawn
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction by awarding a sum in excess of the 'cap' under the Scheme

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator was properly appointed as there was no evidence the Letter of Appointment was sent to RMC; Application No 8 was not withdrawn and the sum claimed became due as no pay less notice was served; without prejudice negotiations could not be relied upon by UKC; UKC failed to prove the contract price for the statutory cap; UKC did not accept any repudiatory breach by RMC; and there was no basis for adjourning or staying enforcement of the judgment.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for the claimant (RMC) as claimed; application for stay of enforcement refused.

Orders

  • UKC to pay RMC the sum awarded by the adjudicator (£216,129)
  • No stay of enforcement granted