​Welcome to our April 2021 Newsletter. The new normal has been with us for over 12 months. Amongst the good news is that the pubs (outdoor seating only), hairdressers and shops have now reopened.

​Aqua Leisure International Limited v Benchmark Leisure Limited [2020] EWHC 3511 (TCC)

Here the TCC dealt with a summary judgment application by Aqua Leisure International Limited (Aqua) seeking to enforce an adjudicator’s decision dated 24 July 2017 (the “Adjudicator’s Decision”) related to an interim payment dispute.​

Welcome to our March Newsletter. We hope that you find it interesting.

A recent relatively simple Technology and Construction Court case between a Plastering Firm and a Drylining Firm [RGB Plastering Limited v Tawe Drylining and Plastering Limited [2020] EWHC 3028 (TCC)] raised the relatively complicated issue of waiver and/or estoppel.

It is quite common for people to say that they did something or agreed to something, which they later view as being detrimental to them, because they were put under some form of economic duress at the time of doing or agreeing to the event in question. The event could be, for example, the signing up to an ‘unfavourable’ final account agreement, agreeing not to pursue further claims, or agreeing to disadvantageous contract terms. However, will the defence of economic duress hold any water?

​When enforcing Adjudicator’s Decisions in Court, there are two alternative approaches, either by issuing proceedings under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 7 or under CPR Part 8.

CPR Part 7 is the conventional method of starting Court proceedings, and is the usual method of attempting to obtain summary judgment of an Adjudicator’s Decision under a modified and shortened Court procedure.

A claimant may use the CPR Part 8 procedure where it seeks the Court’s decision on a question which is unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact.

We are often asked, “What is the difference between ‘Assignment’ and ‘Novation’?”.

A recent TCC Court case (Energy Works (Hull) Limited v MW High Tech Projects UK Limited [2020] EWHC 2537 (TCC)), set out a very useful summary of the legal principles relating to ‘Assignment’ and to ‘Novation’. These legal principles are summarised below.

Introduction
​
In June of this year (2020), the UK Supreme Court issued its judgment in the Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in Liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited case in which the Court concluded that Insolvent companies enjoy the right to pursue adjudications, even against respondents that have a counter-claim or cross-claim.
​
Many commentators saw this judgment as opening the floodgates to adjudications by Insolvent companies, but a more recent Court judgment, as set out below, demonstrate that there are, or may be, certain obstacles in the way of Insolvent companies successfully enforcing Adjudicator’s Decisions in their favour.

Judgment: Kew Holdings Ltd v Donald Insall Associates Ltd [2020] EWHC 1862 (TCC) dated July 2020
(Judgment link: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2020/1862.html)

​This judgment related to a court application by Insall seeking 3 potential court orders in respect of a £2 million damages claim Kew commenced against Insall in March 2020. The Judge, sitting in the Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”), was Mrs. Justice O'Farrell DBE. The Judge ordered Kew’s proceedings be stayed pending Kew’s payment of the sums it had been previously ordered to pay, by the same Judge, on 5 February 2019 (enforcing an adjudicator's decision in Insall’s favour). Kew were also ordered to provide £600,000 as security for costs. The Judge, however, dismissed Insall’s application to strike out Kew’s claim against it.