GPS Marine Contractors Ltd v Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd (2010)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Hon. Mr. Justice Ramsey |
| Judgment Date | 17 February 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 283 (TCC) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HT 09 516 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Date | 17 February 2010 |
[2010] EWHC 283 (TCC)
Before: The Hon. Mr. Justice Ramsey
Case No: HT 09 516
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
Mr Samuel Townend (instructed by Wright Hassall LLP) for the Claimant
Mr Justin Mort (instructed by Barlow Robbins LLP) for the Defendant
The Hon. Mr. Justice Ramsey:
Introduction
This is an application under CPR Part 24 by the Claimant (“GPS”) against the Defendant (“Ringway”) for payment of sums ordered to be paid in an adjudicator's decision dated 29 July 2009.
Background
Ringway operates a facility at the White Mountain Berth on the River Thames at Dagenham where it imports aggregates by boat. That berth needed to be dredged and Ringway engaged GPS to carry out that dredging by an agreement made in May 2008. Difficulties were encountered in the form of debris and in June 2008 the parties agreed how to deal with that situation. GPS sought payment for the work in the sum of £318,613.59 of which Ringway had paid £101,385.
GPS gave Notice of Adjudication on 26 March 2009 and served its Referral on 30 June 2009.
Ringway challenged the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator by writing to him on 3 July 2009 setting out seven grounds of challenge in a paragraph which commenced in these terms:
“Our client does not accept that this adjudication has been validly commenced or that you have jurisdiction in respect of the referring party's claim for a number of reasons. These include the following:…”
They then added at the end:
“There may well be further jurisdiction issues which we have not yet had time or opportunity to investigate. Our client's position in this respect is reserved and the above list should not be understood to be exhaustive.
In the circumstances our client does not consent to or accept your appointment as adjudicator”
The Adjudicator considered those matters and notified the parties on 8 July 2009 that he had concluded that he should proceed with the Adjudication.
In response on 10 July 2009 Ringway stated as follows:
“Firstly, we note that you have decided to continue with the adjudication notwithstanding our client's objections to jurisdiction. We resist the temptation to comment further on that issue. For the avoidance of doubt our client reserves its position on jurisdiction, both in respect of those matters specifically raised and other jurisdiction matters which have now become apparent or will do so. Participation in this adjudication is without prejudice to such reservation. We do not propose to repeat that reservation in every letter or submission but trust that our client's position is understood”
Ringway served its Response on 16 July 2009 and in that document set out jurisdictional objections in the following terms at paragraphs 2 and 3:
“2. This document is served without prejudice to Ringway's objection to this adjudication and to the jurisdiction of the adjudicator. As previously notified to the adjudicator and to the referring party the responding party's position is reserved. Specifically the responding party reserved the right to:
(1) refuse to comply with the adjudicator's decision (including and decision as to payment of costs) on the grounds that such decision is made without jurisdiction;
(2) dispute any enforcement proceedings brought in Court either on the grounds previously identified in correspondence and/or further grounds.
3. Any issues raised below relevant to
(1) the scope of the adjudication;
(2) the jurisdiction of the adjudicator;
are put forward without prejudice to such general reservation.”
GPS served a Reply on 21 July 2009. Ringway served a Rejoinder on 27 July 2009 and the Adjudicator made his decision on 29 July 2009. The Adjudicator ordered Ringway to pay GPS £214,407.69 plus VAT of £31,241.67 and ordered Ringway to pay fees of £11,443.50 inclusive of VAT.
The Application
Ringway has failed to pay those sums and GPS issued proceedings on 21 December 2009 leading to a hearing on 1 February 2010. Ringway served a Defence on 21 January 2010 setting out the grounds on which it seeks to defend these proceedings.
GPS's application is resisted on a number of grounds which may be summarised under the following headings:
(1) That there was a compromise or withdrawal of the dispute.
(2) That more than one dispute was referred to the Adjudicator.
(3) That the decision of the Adjudicator is no longer binding
(4) That the Adjudicator's decision was obtained by fraud.
(5) That there has been a breach of natural justice.
In support of the application, GPS filed a witness statement with a number of exhibits from Matthew Phipps, a solicitor with GPS's solicitors. In response Ringway served a witness statement from Hamish Cameron Blackie, a partner in Ringway's solicitors and from John Patrick Riley, a director of Ringway. In Reply, GPS served a witness statement from John Spencer, Managing Director of GPS. Mr Cameron Blackie also served a further witness statement.
Compromise or Withdrawal
Ringway says that the reference to adjudication was invalid on the basis which they plead at paragraph 7(1) of the Defence as follows: “the matters said to give rise to a dispute had been compromised by the parties at a meeting in 30 July 2008 (alternatively: the Claimant, by its director John Spencer, had agreed to withdraw its claim), in consideration for the Defendant agreeing to withdraw its own cross claim in respect of the Claimant's failure to dredge to the agreed depth;”
Mr Justin Mort, who appears on behalf of Ringway, submits that the question of whether or not there was a compromise or withdrawal of the claim at the meeting on 30 July 2008 raises a triable issue which cannot be determined on this application. He refers me to the speeches of Lord Hope and Lord Hobhouse in Three Rivers District Council v The Governor of the Bank of England [2001] UKHL 16 at [94], [95] and [185]. Those paragraphs show that, as set out in CPR Part 24, the question is whether the claim has “no real prospect of succeeding at trial” and that question has to be answered having regard to the overriding objective of dealing with the case justly. The test is not one of probability it is the absence of reality and “no realistic possibility” distinguishes between a practical probability and what is “fanciful or inconceivable”. The scope of the enquiry is set out by Lord Hope at [86] in those terms:
“I would approach that further question in this way. The method by which issues of fact are tried in our courts is well settled. After the normal processes of discovery and interrogatories have been completed, the parties are allowed to lead their evidence so that the trial judge can determine where the truth lies in the light of that evidence. To that rule there are some well-recognised exceptions. For example, it may be clear as a matter of law at the outset that even if a party were to succeed in proving all the facts that he offers to prove he will not be entitled to the remedy that he seeks. In that event a trial of the facts would be a waste of time and money, and it is proper that the action should be taken out of court as soon as possible. In other cases it may be possible to say with confidence before trial that the factual basis for the claim is fanciful because it is entirely without substance. It may be clear beyond question that the statement of facts is contradicted by all the documents or other material on which it is based. The simpler the case the easier it is likely to be take that view and resort to what is properly called summary judgment. But more complex cases are unlikely to be capable of being resolved in that way without conducting a mini-trial on the documents without discovery and without oral evidence. As Lord Woolf said in Swain v Hillman, at p 95, that is not the object of the rule. It is designed to deal with cases that are not fit for trial at all.”
Mr. Samuel Townend, who appears on behalf of GPS, submits that the alleged compromise or withdrawal is too vague and there is no real prospect of Ringway succeeding in that defence. Alternatively, he says that the Adjudicator was asked to and did deal with the issue which was raised as a defence in the proceedings and his decision is binding. Further, he says that Ringway did not reserve the right to challenge the jurisdiction on this ground.
I shall deal with Mr Townend's alternative contentions.
The alleged agreement at the meeting of 30 July 2008
There is no document which contains or sets out the alleged agreement to compromise or withdraw the claim. The matter depends on oral evidence of what happened at the meeting on 30 July 2008. That meeting was attended by Mr John Spencer, Mr Mick Clarke and Mr Stan Rogers for GPS and Mr Pat Riley, Mr John Shaw and Mr Ian Rogers for Ringway, together with Ms Linda Potter, a director of Armac Shipping Services Limited who acted as shipping agents for ships landing materials at the Berth.
In the evidence for this application there are the witness statements prepared by Mr Spencer, Mr Clark, Mr Rogers and Mr Riley and Ms Potter for the Adjudication. There are also, as set out above, witness statements from Mr Spencer and Mr Riley prepared for this application.
Prior to that meeting GPS had submitted an assessment of additional sums arising in relation to the clearing of debris and also a claim for payment of measured dredging work. At the meeting Mr Riley says that he said that Ringway would pay for silt removed as per a PLA survey and would pay more if it were proved that more silt had been removed. He says that they were not going to pursue their claim that GPS had not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gosvenor London Ltd v Aygun Aluminium UK Ltd
...South Ltd v Kingshead Cirencester LLP [2009] EWHC 2645 (TCC) a decision of Akenhead J. This was then followed by GPS Marine Contractors Ltd v Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd [2010] EWHC 283 (TCC), a decision of Ramsey J, which was handed down after argument, but before the judgment in, ......
-
Equitix Esi CHP (Wrexham) Ltd v Bester Generacion UK Ltd
...v Paradigm Housing Group Limited [2009] EWHC 2890 (TCC) and GPS Marine Contractors Limited v Ridgeway Infrastructure Services Limited [2010] EWHC 283 (TCC). 38 Allied P&L is important because the responding party took various points on jurisdiction, each of which failed. Although they sub......
-
Bresco Electrical Services Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd
...on the grounds that there is no dispute should not and can not be the subject of a reservation of rights.” 86 In GPS Marine Contractors v Ringway Infrastructure Services [2010] EWHC 283 (TCC), Ramsey J dealt in detail with general reservations and said: “37. The underlying issue is whether......
-
Gosvenor London Ltd v Aygun Aluminium Uk Ltd
...no basis for refusing to enforce the adjudicator's decision.” 6 This approach was also followed by Ramsey J in GPS Marine Contractors Ltd v Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd [2010] EWHC 283 (TCC); [2010] BLR 377. Until the present case, these have been the three principal authorities as ......