Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE AKENHEAD |
| Judgment Date | 30 October 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 2507 (TCC) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court) |
| Date | 30 October 2007 |
| Docket Number | Case No: HT 07 305 |
[2007] EWHC 2507 (TCC)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN's BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
Mr Justice Akenhead
Case No: HT 07 305
Mr Stephen Dennison QC (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna) and Mr Rupert Choat (Solicitor Advocate) appeared for the Claimant
Mr Abdul Jinadu (instructed by Moran & Co.) appeared for the Defendant
Hearing date 23 October 2007
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE AKENHEAD
Introduction
On 23 October 2007, I handed down judgment in this case. The Claimant (“Ringway”) was a contractor employed by the Defendant (“Vauxhall”) to carry out various works in connection with a new vehicle distribution centre at Vauxhall's premises in Cheshire. Ringway had referred a dispute to adjudication. The Adjudicator had ordered Vauxhall to pay Ringway £1,303,704.95 plus VAT and interest together with his fees and expenses. Ringway issued proceedings and applied for summary judgment to enforce that decision. Vauxhall had instituted other proceedings seeking declarations that the Adjudicator had no jurisdiction to determine that which he had determined.
I decided that the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide as he did and that his decision dated 14 August 2007 was enforceable and should be enforced. Judgment to that effect was given.
On the handing down of the judgment, I was asked to deal with costs and interest. I dealt with the question of costs there and then. However, the question of interest raises a new and interesting point as to the discretion (if any) of the Court in relation to the award of interest.
The Issue
The issue is essentially whether or not the Court upon the enforcement of an adjudicator's decision has a discretion to order interest upon any sum adjudicated due and payable for a longer period (and possibly at a different rate) to that allowed by the adjudicator; if so, how should that discretion be exercised?
The issue arises in this way. The Contract between the parties in the standard JCT form (With Contractor's Design 1998 edition) provided for Applications for Interim Payment to be made from time to time. In provisions which mirrored those set out in Section 110 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, the Employer was within seven days after receipt of such Application to give a written notice to the Contractor specifying the amount of payment proposed to be made. In another provision mirroring Section 111 of the HGCRA 1996, provision was made for the Employer within a set time to give a written notice to the Contractor. Clause 30.3.5 stated that where the Employer (Vauxhall in this case) did not give any written notice pursuant to these provisions it was to pay the Contractor the net amount stated in the Application for Interim Payment.
Given that Interim Application No. 11 dated 16 May 2007 was not responded to in any way within the periods called for, it could thus properly be said that the net amount stated as due became due on 24 May 2007.
If Interim Application No. 11 was, upon proper analysis, an Interim Application for Payment under the Contract, it would therefore seem that there would be no defence to any claim for the net sum applied for if the Clauses 30.3.3 and 30.3.4 notices were not given in time. It is accepted that, if this Interim Application No. 11 was a valid Application, the requisite Clause 30.3.3 notice had to be in by no later than 24 May 2007.
The dispute referred to adjudication was Ringway's claim for payment in respect of Interim Application No. 11. It is clear that the primary and possibly only point which it took was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AMD Environmental Ltd v Cumberland Construction Company Ltd
...a claim which is not accepted in whole or in part for a reasonable period thereafter, is deemed to be disputed: see Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd [2007] EWHC 2421 (TCC). 9 In the present case I have concluded that, for a number of reasons, the crystallisation arg......
-
Jim Ennis Construction Ltd v Premier Asphalt Ltd
...gives rise to a separate contractual obligation to comply with the decision. 14 I also note that in the case of Ringway Infrastructure Services v Vauxhall Motors (No 2) [2007] EWHC 2507 (TCC) Akenhead J, considering an argument in an adjudication enforcement action that the court had a disc......
-
St Austell Printing Company Ltd v Dawnus Construction Holdings Ltd
...the notice of adjudication. 15 In a more recent cast on crystallisation which summarised the relevant principles, Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd [2007] EWHC 2421 (TCC), Akenhead J said: "(1) The existence of a dispute or difference may be inferred from what is sai......
-
Case Law Review
...followed in similar situations in future. David Thomas QC Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd [2008] TCLR 2 and [2008] 115 Con LR 149 TCC Already reported in CILL, this decision concerned chiefly claimability of interest. The cause of action for these purposes would be......
-
Table of cases
...Vauxhall Motors Ltd [2007] EWhC 2421 (TCC) III.24.22 ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd (No.2) [2008] TCLr 2; [2007] EWhC 2507 (TCC) III.24.94 ringway roadmarking Ltd v adbruf Ltd (Unreported, QBD, hhJ Esyr Lewis QC, 22 May 1998) II.9.64 ripley v United States, 223 U.......
-
Statutory adjudication
...Systems Ltd (2009) 130 Con LR 61 at 72 [26], per Akenhead J. 488 Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd (No 2) [2007] EWHC 2507 (TCC) ([2008] TCLR 2). STATUTORY ADJUDICATION on the adjudicated amount, and will typically do so with reference to the time by which that amoun......