Primus Build Ltd v Pompey Centre Ltd & Slidesilver Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Coulson |
| Judgment Date | 16 June 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 1487 (TCC) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HT-09177 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court) |
| Date | 16 June 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 1487 (TCC)
Mr Justice Coulson
Case No: HT-09177
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
St Dunstan's House
133—137 Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1HD
Miss Lynne McCafferty (instructed by Fenwick Elliott) for the Claimant.
Mr Gideon Scott Holland (instructed by Sellar Property Group) for the Defendants.
Mr Justice Coulson:
INTRODUCTION
This is a claim for enforcement of an adjudicator's decision dated 14th April 2009. It raises two points of principle. The first concerns the proper service of a Notice of Adjudication and the possible consequences of invalid service. The second relates to the validity of an adjudicator's decision which is based upon a critical finding and calculation that neither side relied on in their submissions and did not have an opportunity to address. It also raises a more general point about the costs of the adjudication process.
BACKGROUND
By a contract made in writing on 12th October 2007, the Defendants (“Pompey”) engaged the Claimants (“Primus”) to provide construction management services in relation to the construction of a hotel and office building in Portsmouth (“the project”).
Clause 22 dealt with dispute resolution. It provided that, in the first instance, disputes were to be addressed by senior representatives or members of the board of directors of each party. If that method failed to resolve the dispute, then the parties agreed that the dispute would be referred to adjudication and that the procedures and rules relating to that adjudication would be those set out in the Model Adjudication Procedure of the Construction Industry Council (“the CIC”).
Clause 26 of the contract was concerned with notices. That clause provided:
“26.1 Any notice to be given hereunder shall either be delivered personally or sent by fax. The addresses or numbers for service of the Employer and the Construction Manager shall be those stated in Schedule 1 or such other address or number for service as the party to be served may have previously notified in writing to the other party. A notice shall be deemed to have been served as follows:
26.1.1 if personally delivered at the time of delivery, or
26.1.2 if sent by fax at the time of transmission.
26.2 In proving such service, it shall be sufficient to prove that personal delivery was made or that the fax was properly addressed and despatched as the case may be.”
In June 2008, the office building element of the project was omitted from the scope of Primus's work. Although there was an express agreement that Primus “would be entitled to be compensated for the profit it will have forgone” as a result of this omission, the particular profit claims put forward by Primus were rejected by Pompey and, in November, they suggested that Primus had in fact already been adequately compensated for the omission.
A Notice of Adjudication was issued on 5th March 2009, claiming loss of profit in the sum of £107,253.73, plus VAT and interest, or such other sum as the adjudicator might determine. It was served by post on that day. The evidence is that it was received by Pompey the following day, 6th March 2009, and that at some point that day it was received into the hands of their solicitor. By his decision of 14th April, the adjudicator, Mr Paul Lomas-Clarke, decided that the sum of £47,870.91, plus VAT and interest, should be paid by Pompey to Primus by way of loss of profit. Thus far, this sum has not been paid and, on 13th May 2009, Primus commenced these enforcement proceedings.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
It is of course trite law that the Courts will generally seek to enforce decisions of adjudicators ( Macob Civil Engineering Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd [1999] BLR 93) even if such decisions contain errors of fact or law: see Bouygues (UK) Ltd v Dahl-Jensen (UK) Ltd [2000] BLR 522. Broadly speaking, there are only two ways for a paying party to avoid payment: either by demonstrating a lack of jurisdiction on the part of the adjudicator, or a material breach of the rules of natural justice. Even then, the Courts have made it clear that such arguments face something of an uphill task.
In Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard [2005] BLR 310, Chadwick LJ said:
'85. The objective which underlies the Act and the statutory scheme requires the courts to respect and enforce the adjudicator's decision unless it is plain that the question which he has decided was not the question referred to him or the manner in which he has gone about his task is obviously unfair. It should be only in rare circumstances that the courts will interfere with the decision of an adjudicator …
86. It is only too easy in a complex case for a party who is dissatisfied with the decision of an adjudicator to comb through the adjudicator's reasons and identify points upon which to present a challenge under the labels “excess of jurisdiction” or “breach of natural justice”…
87. In short, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the proper course for the party who is unsuccessful in an adjudication under the scheme must be to pay the amount that he has been ordered to pay by the adjudicator. If he does not accept the adjudicator's decision as correct (whether on the facts or in law), he can take legal or arbitration proceedings in order to establish the true position.'
I note that here Pompey raise one point in each category, although the alleged breach of natural justice is also put as an excess of jurisdiction.
ISSUE 1 – THE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF ADJUDICATION
The Issue
Pompey originally took four jurisdiction points in front of the adjudicator. He rejected them all. Three of those have now been abandoned, leaving only the last, namely the allegedly defective service of the Notice of Adjudication. The adjudicator found that “the defect was not such as to prevent this adjudication continuing”.
As I have indicated, the Notice of Adjudication was served by post on 5th March 2009. The evidence was that it was actually received by Pompey the following day, 6th March, even though the relevant envelope had in fact been misaddressed. The evidence is also that, at some point during 6th March, the Adjudication Notice was seen by Pompey's solicitor, who had been involved in some of the previous dealings between the parties on the loss of profit issue. Notwithstanding that receipt, Pompey say that, pursuant to clause 26 of the contract, the notice should have been provided either by way of personal delivery (which they equate with personal service) or by fax and, because it was not served in either way, it was invalid and that, consequently, the adjudicator did not have the necessary jurisdiction.
General Principles Relating To Service
Section 115 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 provides as follows:
“(1) The parties are free to agree on the manner of service of any notice or other document required or authorised to be served in pursuance of the construction contract or for any of the purposes of this Part.
(2) If or to the extent that there is no such agreement the following provisions apply.
(3) A notice or other document may be served on a person by any effective means.
(4) If a notice or other document is addressed, pre-paid and delivered by post—
(a) to the addressee's last known principal residence or, if he is or has been carrying on a trade, profession or business, his last known principal business address, or
(b) where the addressee is a body corporate, to the body's registered or principal office,
it shall be treated as effectively served.
(5) This section does not apply to the service of documents for the purposes of legal proceedings, for which provision is made by rules of court.”
In the present case, the parties had agreed “on the manner of service of any notice”: that is the procedure set out in clause 26. The parties also agreed, at clause 22.2, that the CIC Model Adjudication Procedure would apply. That provided detailed provisions relating to adjudication, but it did not contain any express provisions relating to service. Thus the parties are agreed that what matters for the purpose of this issue are the terms of clause 26.
More widely, I note that it has been held that, as a result of the wording of section 115, the provisions of the CPR dealing with service are not to be regarded as having been incorporated wholesale into the adjudication process: see Cubitt Building & Interiors Limited v Fleetglade Limited [2006] EWHC 3413 TCC. It is also to be noted that the same applies to arbitration proceedings: see Bernuth Lines Ltd v High Seas Shipping Ltd [2006] 1 Lloyd's Rep 537.
Technical points as to the service of documents in adjudications have not generally found favour with the Courts: see, for example, Nageh v Richard Giddings & Anr [2006] EWHC 3240 TCC. However, that general approach is not always appropriate. If, say, it can be shown that the responding party was kept in the dark about the adjudication process, because the Adjudication Notice (and/or other documents) were not served at the appropriate address, and there was an arguable case that this had been deliberate, the decision will not be enforced: see M Rohde Construction v Nicholas Markham-David [2006] EWHC 814 TCC.
In addition, because an adjudicator derives his jurisdiction from the Notice of Adjudication, if it is proved that the Notice has not been validly served, it will generally operate to deprive the adjudicator of any jurisdiction. In IDE Contracting Ltd. v RG Carter Cambridge Ltd [2004] EWHC 36 TCC, a Notice of Adjudication was invalidly served because, contrary to the express provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts, it was served...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ener-g Holdings Plc v Philip Hormell
...somewhere at the building which is the registered office. That gives no meaning to "personally"." iii) Finally, there was Primus Build Ltd v Pompey Centre Ltd [2009] EWHC 1487 (TCC), 126 Con LR 26, a first instance decision of Coulson J, which neither Counsel sought to adopt and both sought......
- Leap Modulation Sdn Bhd v PCP Construction Sdn Bhd (and Another Appeal)
-
Steve Ward Services (UK) Ltd v Davies & Davies Associates Ltd
...should raise that issue with the parties before coming to their own conclusion. In Primus Build Ltd v Pompey Centre Ltd and another [2009] EWHC 1487 (TCC); [2009] BLR 437, the adjudicator spotted a point of significance (in that case, various figures in one party's accounts, rather than a ......
- Ener-G Holdings Plc v Philip Hormell
-
Construction Adjudication: Breach Of Natural Justice
...analysis which he had obtained from a programming expert without the knowledge of either party. Similarly, in Primus Build v Pompey [2009] EWHC 1487 (TCC), the adjudicator, again without prior reference to the parties, had made use in his decision of figures taken from documents which both ......