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  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?
Resisting the enforcement of Adjudicator’s Decisions that are ‘wrong and beyond rational justification’.
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.