Beck Interiors Ltd v Classic Decorative Finishing Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Coulson |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 1956 (TCC) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court) |
| Date | 12 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No: HT-12-177 |
[2012] EWHC 1956 (TCC)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Coulson
Case No: HT-12-177
Mr Michael Wheater (instructed by SGH Martineau LLP) for the Claimant
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented
Hearing date: 12.7.12
By a sub-contract made in writing on or about 7 February 2011, the claimant, Beck Interiors Limited ("Beck"), engaged the defendant, Classic Decorative Finishes Limited ("CDF"), to carry out internal and external decoration works at 1 Cambridge Gate, London NW1.
Disputes arose between the parties and Beck referred their claim against CDF to adjudication. On 11 May 2012, the adjudicator provided a written decision in which he concluded that Beck were entitled to £35,901.45 plus VAT, a total of £43,081.74. Although he also decided that CDF were liable for a further sum in relation to his fees, that matter has been subsequently resolved directly between the adjudicator and CDF, so that Beck's claim in relation to their potential liability for those fees is no longer pursued.
The sum of £43,081.74 has not been paid by CDF. Instead, they have raised a defence to that claim. That defence expressly accepts that the adjudicator had the jurisdiction to reach his decision, and raises no challenge on any ground of natural justice. Instead, it is alleged that the sum is not due because, so it is said, Beck owe to CDF the sum of €59,156.23. That sum is said to be due under a final account relating to works carried out by CDF for Beck at Danesmoate House in Dublin.
Directions for the resolution of this disputed enforecement were provided by Akenhead J on 13 June 2012. In essence, he required CDF to provide their evidence in response to the claim by 26 June 2012 and that subsequently, if Beck had any further evidence in reply, they were to provide that by 3 July 2012. In fact, Beck chose not to serve any further evidence; instead they rely solely on their original evidence in support of their claim.
Akenhead J also ordered that Beck should provide a skeleton argument and all authorities by 2 pm on 11 July 2012 – that is to say, by 2pm yesterday. In fact, Mr Wheater, counsel for Beck, provided his skeleton argument on Monday 9 July in electronic form, and again in hard copy on Tuesday 10 July 2012. Certainly on Tuesday 10 July I received both the hard copy skeleton and a small file of authorities.
CDF are not present and are not represented today. They sent an email first thing this morning to complain that Beck had not supplied their material in accordance with the court order. As I have demonstrated, that is an erroneous submission. It is based, I think, on CDF's confusion between Beck's further evidence, which has not been served because there is no such evidence, and Beck's skeleton argument, which was in fact served earlier than the date stipulated by Akenhead J. Other reasons given in the email as to why CDF are not present, principally concerned with the logistics of getting here from Blackpool, cannot justify either the suggested striking out or even an adjournment. This hearing was fixed almost a month ago and no point about logistical difficulties has been raised before.
Accordingly, the material set out in CDF's email of this morning is fallacious. It is not a proper explanation for their failure to attend. I am quite certain that, in those circumstances, it is appropriate for the court to go on and consider on its merits this application to enforce the adjudicator's decision.
There are three reasons why, in my view, the matters raised by CDF (their argument that they can set-off against the adjudicator's decision the sums they claim due under the separate contract in Dublin) are simply not arguable as a defence to this claim.
First, it is rare for the court to permit the unsuccessful party in an adjudication to set-off against the sum awarded by the adjudicator some other separate claim. In accordance with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Set-Off And Adjudicator's Awards
...adjudicator's decision, where the 'losing' party claims set-off. The cases are Beck Interiors Ltd v. Classic Decorative Finishing Ltd [2012] EWHC 1956 (TCC) and Squibb Group Ltd v. Vertase FLI Ltd [2012] EWHC 1958 (TCC). Neither decision is particularly novel however they both provide a tim......
-
Price and payment
...Wang On Construction Engineering Ltd [2000] hKCFI 1165 at [11], per Burrell J; Beck Interiors Ltd v Classic Decorative Finishing Ltd [2012] EWhC 1956 (TCC) at [13]–[15], per Coulson J. See also JA Johnson (Electrical Contractors) Ltd v Wes Electrical Services Ltd (Unreported, Eng. Ct app, r......
-
Statutory adjudication
...Henry Bros (Magherafelt) Ltd v Brunswick (8 Lanyon Place) Ltd [2011] NIQB 102; Beck Interiors Ltd v Classic Decorative Finishing Ltd [2012] EWHC 1956 (TCC) at [9], per Coulson J; Squibb Group Ltd v Vertase FLI Ltd [2012] BLR 408 at 413 [11], per Coulson J; hameside Construction Co Ltd v Ste......
-
Table of cases
...[1961] NSWR 864 I.3.117 Beckett v Cohen [1972] 1 WLR 1593 II.11.10, II.11.39 Beck Interiors Ltd v Classic Decorative Finishing Ltd [2012] EWHC 1956 (TCC) II.6.407, III.24.120, III.24.121 Beck Interiors Ltd v Russo [2010] BLR 37 II.12.22, II.12.26, II.12.30 Beck Interiors Ltd v UK Flooring C......