ECO Measure Market Exchange Ltd v Quantum Climate Services Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Steinfeld |
| Judgment Date | 18 May 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 1797 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 18 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2479/2015 |
[2015] EWHC 1797 (CH)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
7 Rolls Building
Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
Mr A Steinfeld QC
(SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE)
Case No: 2479/2015
Mr Alan Deacock (instructed by Bermans LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Timothy Becker (Direct Access) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
(As Approved)
Mr Steinfeld QC:
There comes before me an application by a company called Eco Measure Market Exchange Ltd (which I will call "the Company") to strike out or dismiss a petition that has been presented against it by a company called Quantum Climate Services Ltd (which I shall call "Quantum"). The Company is represented before me by Mr Adam Deacock. Quantum is represented by Mr Timothy Becker.
The petition is founded upon a debt allegedly due from the Company to Quantum for services rendered under what is described as a standard service agreement, dated 1 st October 2014, made between those two companies. The services which were to be provided, and which Quantum claims were provided, to the Company under the terms of that agreement related to, so far as relevant, carrying out insulation work to lofts in respect of which ultimately there would be an entitlement to obtain payment under a scheme that the government has introduced, whereby in substance grants are given to householders who put in various insulation measures that result in a reduction in the amount of energy that is used for the purposes of heating those dwellings and therefore results in a reduction in carbon emissions.
The Company acted, as it described itself, as a broker. Under the terms of the service agreement, Quantum was to carry out the relevant works. It was then to be entitled to require payment for those works from the Company. The Company in turn was able to recover the cost of those works from another company, called a funder, which in this instance was a company called Tesla, which is now in administration.
What, on the evidence, appears to have happened, to be as neutral as possible, is that Quantum carried out works on some 47 properties. It submitted invoices for those works accompanied by certificates, which are required in order to show the amount of insulation that was carried out and the calculation of the carbon admission savings which have resulted from that because it was upon that that ultimately the grant was to be based. It submitted those to the Company. The Company passed them on to Tesla. Tesla carried out some sample tests just to ensure that the payments should be in order. It did 17 such tests and discovered that there were discrepancies in relation to 16 and ultimately it rejected the 17 th as well. To cut matters short, ultimately it rejected any obligation to pay in regard to all 47 and, as I had said, has now gone into administration. It rejected the payments on the grounds that it considered that the work had not been carried out to justify the payments being made. In some cases that was because the premises in which the work was carried out had already had insulation work carried out and indeed grants had already be made in respect of those premises which, as I understand the position, disentitles any further grants being made for any further insulation work carried out in the same premises.
Be that as it may, the service agreement provided by clause 25 that, after attempts by alternative dispute resolution procedure had been exhausted, "any dispute arising out of or relating to this agreement" (quoting the words from clause 25.1, defining what is referred to in clause 25.3 as "the dispute") "may be referred to arbitration by either party".
By paragraph 25 of the second witness statement on behalf of the Company by Mr Lesley Pierpoint, which was made on 5 May 2015, Mr Pierpoint on behalf of the Company confirmed that the Company wished to refer the dispute between it and Quantum to arbitration pursuant to that clause of the agreement.
In Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd [2014] EWCA 1575, when it came before the Court of Appeal, the issue was whether a winding up petition, which was presented upon a debt arising out of a contract which had an arbitration clause in it, was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company)
...Ltd) [2015] 1 WLR 3911 and applied by the English High Court in Eco Measure Market Exchange Ltd v Quantum Climate Services Ltd [2015] EWHC 1797 (Ch) (“Eco Measure”) and Fieldfisher LLP v Pennyfeathers Ltd [2016] EWHC 566 (Ch) (“Fieldfisher”). In Eco Measure, the judge observed that “[t]he r......
-
Dayang (Hk) Marine Shipping Co., Ltd v Asia Master Logistics Ltd
...ENTA Technologies Ltd) [2015] 1 WLR 3911 (“Changtel Solutions”), Eco Measure Market Exchange Ltd v Quantum Climate Services Ltd [2015] BCC 877 (“Eco Measure”) and the Singaporean decision of BDG v BDH [2016] 5 SLR 977 (“BDG”) were cited by Harris J with approval (the “Comparative 62. The di......
-
VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) v Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd
...Technologies Ltd) [2015] 1 WLR 3911 and the High Court decisions of Eco Measure Market Exchange Ltd v Quantum Climate Services Ltd [2015] EWHC 1797 (Ch) (“Eco Measure”) and Fieldfisher LLP v Pennyfeathers Ltd [2016] EWHC 566 (Ch) (“Fieldfisher”). Outside of England, Salford has been cited w......
-
BWF v BWG
...authorities do not differ. Explaining the effect of Salford at [10] of Eco Measure Market Exchange Ltd v Quantum Climate Services Ltd [2015] BCC 877, Alan Steinfeld QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge in the Chancery Division stated: What the Court of Appeal decided in clear terms in th......
-
Winding-up Petition v Arbitration Clause: Hong Kong Court Dismisses Winding-up Petition in Favor of Arbitration Clause
...between them should be resolved“. Salford was subsequently followed in Eco Measure Marketing Exchange Ltd v Quantum Climate Services Ltd [2015] BCC 877, leading the CFI to conclude that “the present position in England is that if an alleged debt arising under an agreement containing an arbi......
-
Winding-up Petition v Arbitration Clause: Hong Kong Court Dismisses Winding-up Petition in Favor of Arbitration Clause
...between them should be resolved“. Salford was subsequently followed in Eco Measure Marketing Exchange Ltd v Quantum Climate Services Ltd [2015] BCC 877, leading the CFI to conclude that “the present position in England is that if an alleged debt arising under an agreement containing an arbi......