The judgment in the case of Alandale Plant and Scaffolding Ltd v Ilford (Jersey) Ltd has recently become available and provides a salutary reminder of the Technology and Construction Court’s (TCC) low tolerance for wasting time and costs, especially in what should be relatively straightforward proceedings.
The case concerned parties to a contract for scaffolding hire, whereby Alandale had referred a dispute for non-payment to adjudication. The adjudicator found in favour of Alandale and ordered Ilford to pay a sum of £119,500 plus interest, as well as the adjudicator’s fees. Ilford had engaged in the adjudication process but ultimately ignored the decision, failing to make payment. Alandale duly issued enforcement proceedings and a summary judgment hearing was listed for January 2024. However, while Ilford initially filed its acknowledgement of service indicating that it intended to defend the claim, it subsequently took no further part in the proceedings. Ilford’s solicitors were chased by Alandale’s lawyers, but they did not respond, nor did they make any application to come off the record. Ultimately, neither Ilford nor its representatives attended the summary judgment hearing. Accordingly, judgment was granted in favour of Alandale, with the judge restating the principal that parties to an adjudication should “pay now, argue later”.
The outcome of the claim is not surprising. As has been well documented the TCC is keen to enforce adjudicator’s decisions, and summary judgment applications will usually be granted given that such cases will often be enforced and dealt with swiftly. One of the primary reasons for this is to encourage resolution of as many construction disputes outside of the court as possible, minimising cost to the parties and wasted time for the court.
It is therefore also no surprise that the judge in this case took a dim view of what he called Ilford’s “highly unreasonable” conduct, making an order for costs in favour of the claimant on an indemnity basis. The judge concluded that Ilford’s behaviour had “put the claimant to unnecessary cost in circumstances where it appears that the defendant had no real defence to the proceedings and has strung things out in a way that has caused delay, which is contrary to the policy of the 1996 Act and the way it is supposed to work and generated wholly avoidable costs”.
The case therefore highlights the TCC’s emphasis on minimising wasted cost and time and that it will continue to show minimal leniency to those who try to subvert these principals. If you are ordered to make a payment under an adjudication decision, you must pay this before taking any further action. If you do not and find yourself the defendant to an enforcement claim, it is always recommended to proactively engage with proceedings. Our team of contentious construction specialists can assist with these processes.
Key Contacts
The content of this article is for general information only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. If you require any further information in relation to this article please contact the author in the first instance. Law covered as at June 2024.