Anglo Swiss Holdings Ltd & Others v Packman Lucas Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Akenhead |
| Judgment Date | 09 December 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 3212 (TCC) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HT-09–410,411,412 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court) |
| Date | 09 December 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 3212 (TCC)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
Before: The Honourable Mr Justice Akenhead
Case No: HT-09–410,411,412
Michael Taylor (instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP) for the Claimant
David Sears QC (instructed by Mishcon de Reya) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 4 December 2009
Mr Justice Akenhead:
Introduction
This judgement addresses various applications by which the Defendant seeks to have the proceedings against it stayed; those grounds are non-compliance with the TCC Pre-Action Protocol, failure to honour earlier adjudication decisions and judgements on related subject matters and security for costs application.
The Background
The Claimants are companies registered in Jersey in the Channel Islands which are owned by what has been called a “family trust” which is otherwise unidentified. They were apparently formed to acquire and develop properties in London (including the “In and Out” Club in Piccadilly) and the well-known Mentmore Towers in Buckinghamshire, designed by Joseph Paxton and originally built for Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild in the 19 th Century and later occupied by his daughter and her husband, the 5 th Earl of Rosebery.
In April 2005, the Defendant, which provides engineering services, was engaged by Anglo Swiss Holdings Ltd (“Anglo Swiss”) to provide such services in connection with a project to develop 90–95, Piccadilly and 42–46, Half Moon Street, London into a “six star” hotel and spa. In June 2006, Good Start Ltd (“Good Start”) retained the Defendant in connection with the development of 100 Piccadilly which was to be part of the Anglo Swiss development. Also in 2006, Mentmore Towers Ltd employed the Defendant in connection with a development of a hotel at Mentmore Towers. The terms of those engagements are not particularly material for the purpose of these applications save that payment was to be made at least in part by reference to the stages of work reached by the Defendant; these were Stages A to K and equate, I am told, to the stages commonly used in architects' fee agreements. Another agreement was entered into by which Charles Street Holdings Ltd (a related company) engaged the Defendant to carry out work at 21 Charles Street, London. All of these developments seem to have been interrelated.
At some stage work on the projects ceased and in about mid 2007 payments of fees to the Defendant ceased. On 30 April 2009, as it was entitled to do, the Claimants commenced adjudication proceedings against each of it's four employers on the four developments for what was said to be outstanding fees. Mr CJ Hough was appointed the Adjudicator in each case and the proceedings were contested. In those proceedings, the Claimants (in this case) in defending put forward detailed arguments and evidence to the effect that not only was nothing due but that there had been overpayments.
The Adjudicator decided in each case that the Claimants should pay sums to the Defendant, Anglo Swiss to pay £153,704.50 plus £1233.38 fees, Good Start to pay £83,104.83 plus £1233.38 fees and Mentmore Towers to pay £182,906.26 and £1233.38 fees. These decisions were dated 14 June 2009. He effectively decided that because notices called for under Section 110 and 111 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“ HGCRA”), as reflected in the engagement contracts had never been served within time or at all by the Defendant's respective clients, it simply was not open to them to run the arguments that no sum was due or that there had been overpayments. Contrary to the contractual requirements and to the HGCRA, these decisions were not and have not been honoured by the Claimants.
The Claimants' solicitors having indicated earlier that they were not instructed to accept service of enforcement, the Defendant issued to enforce the adjudicator's decision. The Court gave permission for those proceedings to be served on the Claimants in Jersey with copies to their London solicitors. No Acknowledgements of Service having been filed as required, judgements were entered for the full amounts on 3 August 2009. By letters dated 14 August 2009, the Claimants were asked by the Defendant's solicitors to pay and copies of the judgements were provided. There were no applications to have the judgements set aside. On 25 August 2009 interim charging orders were made on the respective properties owned by the Claimants.
On 2 October 2009, the Bank of Scotland which was a primary lender to Anglo Swiss and had a priority charge over 90–95, Piccadilly and 42–46, Half Moon Street appointed a receiver in effect to sell the premises. The Bank's solicitor has indicated that the Bank is facing “a significant shortfall” with regard to the recovery of its debt from such sale, albeit that the Claimants do not accept this.
On 16 October 2009, this Court made a final charging order on the three sets of premises owned by the Claimants. The day before, the Claimants issued three sets of proceedings on behalf of each of the Claimants claiming recovery of alleged overpayments made by them to the Defendants, Anglo Swiss claiming £123,932.83, Good Start claiming £34,030 and Mentmore Towers claiming £220,000, all plus VAT. After Court hours on 15 October 2009, the Claimants faxed a letter to the Court inviting it to defer making the interim charging orders final until the disputes which are the subject matter of their proceedings issued on that day were resolved; the grounds were in effect that, on the Claimants' case, the Defendant had already been overpaid, the Claimants were concerned about the financial stability of the Defendant and therefore they might not recover any sums paid over to them. The Claimants did not appear and were not represented at the hearing of the Final Charging Order application. I considered the representations made but rejected them on the basis that there was no assertion that the Claimants were unable to pay the judgement sums and that, broadly, adjudication decisions and judgements should be honoured, even if there were other claims arising.
The three sets of proceedings having been served by their Claimants, the Defendant's solicitors wrote on 2 November 2009 pointing out in effect that, as the Claimants were registered in Jersey, all the properties in question were charged and receivers had been appointed for some of the properties and the Claimants would be unable to pay the costs of these proceedings if required to do so. Security of the costs was asked for. They specifically asked for information about what assets the Claimants had and broadly raised questions about whether or not the Claimants could pay the costs; there has been little or no response to this.
On 11 November 2009, the Defendant applied for, and on 19 November 2009 the court issued, an order to the effect that the Defendant's time for service of Defences in the three sets of proceedings should be extended until 28 days after the determinations /hearing of the applications which the Defendant was about to issue.
These Applications
On 17 November 2009, the Defendant issued the application which are the subject matter of this judgement. The application asks for the three sets of proceedings to be consolidated; this was agreed to by the Claimants. The application asked for a stay of proceedings pending compliance with the TCC Pre-Action Protocol, for a stay pending compliance with the Court's default judgements and orders for security for costs. That was supported by detailed statements from Mr Stockill and Mr Packman dated 17 November 2009. The hearing date was fixed for 4 December 2009. At 21.44 on 3 December 2009, the Claimants solicitors served a witness statement from Mr Hunter which put forward various grounds and some facts to the effect that the orders sought should not be granted. Very belatedly, in the week leading up to the Friday hearing, he had indicated that subject to restrictive conditions, the Defendant's solicitors could have access to inspect financial information relating to the Piccadilly properties owned by Anglo Swiss and Good Start. The conditions were such that the information could not come into the public arena and from what the Claimants counsel Mr Sears QC told me it could not be relied upon in the court proceedings. Mr Hunter said at Paragraph 17:
“The Claimants are confident that the information will indicate that Anglo Swiss Holdings Ltd and Good Start Ltd had significant equity in the Piccadilly properties”.
There was no mention of Mentmore Towers.
Mr Packman's statement, which was not challenged by Mr Hunter, said that the Defendant's work went beyond Stage D; he attached by way of example the Stage F drawings for Mentmore Towers. This was material because the three sets of proceedings are predicated upon the Claimants' assertions that no work was done by the Defendant beyond Stage D; their pleaded evaluation is what sums were due in total to the Defendant is based only upon work having been performed up to and including Stage D. Stage D is the schematic design stage whilst Stage F is the detailed design stage. Mr Hunter attaches to his witness statement some of the Responses made by his clients in the adjudications in which it is recorded that the Claimants' Project Manager, a Mr Anderson, specifically asserted on 13 December 2007 that 30% of Stages E and F had been completed by the Defendant on the projects for Anglo Swiss and Good Start.
I will deal with each of the contested applications in turn.
Stay for Pre Action Protocol
The Claimants did not follow the Pre-Action Protocol...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J & B Hopkins Ltd v A & v Building Solution Ltd
...state of accounts between the parties. The Court's approach in such a case was set out in the judgment of Akenhead J. in Anglo Swiss Holdings Ltd v Packman Lucas Ltd [2009] EWHC 3212 (TCC); [2010] BLR 109; 128 Con LR 67 at paragraph [21]: (i) The court undoubtedly has the power and discret......
-
Packman Lucas Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd and Another
...on these interesting issues. 1 Judgment on Liability: [2009] EWHC 1552 (TCC); Judgment on Quantum: [2010] EWHC 98 (TCC) 2 [2009] EWHC 3212 (TCC) 3 [2010] EWHC 457 (TCC) 4 Certainly this text can be found in the White Book for [2010] EWHC 457 (TCC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENC......
-
Kew Holdings Ltd v Donald Insall Associates Ltd
...that the Court may stay the whole or part of any proceedings either generally or until a specified date or event. 14 In Anglo-Swiss Holdings Ltd v Packman Lucas Ltd [2009] EWHC 3212 (TCC) the court considered whether an established refusal to honour or satisfy a previous adjudication decis......
-
Gateway Shipping Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, TC 02014
...any event under CPR 25 the Court would look at the strength of the Appellant’s case, see Anglo Swiss Holdings Ltd v Packman Lucas Ltd [2009] EWHC 3212 (TCC). 5 51. Mr Shelley said that this is not a situation where an approach to the bank is realistic. He referred to the letter of 4 March 2......