A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 14 February 2017
Jefford J declined to grant summary judgment to enforce an Adjudicator's award because there was a substantive dispute of fact regarding the alleged oral contract between the parties that was not appropriate for determination on a summary basis.
There are two useful reminders from this case (i) that parties should be clear about who they were in contract with before embarking on (potentially expensive) adjudication proceedings which may ultimately be ineffective (ii) the effect of the amendments to the Construction Act mean that "oral construction contracts" fall within the right to adjudicate.
The case concerned a mixed use development on Camberwell New Road in London ("the Project").
The Employer under the Main Contract was O'Loughlin Leisure (Jersey) Limited ("O'Loughlin"). The Contractor was HOC (UK) Limited ("HOC"). O'Loughlin was a Joint Venture involving a subsidiary of IDM Investment Holdings Limited.
HOC suffered cash flow issues. Consequently, in or around November 2015, the parties entered into two arrangements with IDM that:
In December 2015, Dacy became involved in the Project.
There was a dispute on fact as to the terms of a conversation held on this date which was said to form the basis of the oral contract. In summary:
There was no dispute that Dacy supplied labour, plant and materials to the Project.
Dacy's initial invoices (1 – 3) were paid in full. The later invoices (4 – 6) were not paid.
Dacy therefore referred the dispute to Adjudication. IDM objected on the grounds that there was "no contract between the parties" and, therefore, there was "no dispute".
The Adjudicator came to a (non-binding) decision that there was a contract between Dacy and IDM and proceeded to award Dacy the sums claimed. IDM did not pay.
Jefford J took some time setting out the background facts to the matter and considering the evidence of (1) what occurred on 3 December 2015; and (2) how the alleged contract was operated thereafter.
Ultimately, her conclusion was that it was "…not at all clear who Dacy contracted with if anyone…". The application for summary judgment was therefore declined.
A couple of points of interest arise from the Judgment:
The decision in Dacy v IDM gives a good example of the latter where the facts and evidence presented were too complex for the Court to come to a decision on a summary basis.
In practical terms, the message is clear – take care to clarify who you are in contract with before embarking on (potentially expensive) adjudication proceedings which may ultimately be ineffective.
London - Walbrook
+44 (0)20 7894 6314
Mark Roach, Rebecca Austin, Chris Lewis
Mark Roach, Esther Dawe
Mark Roach, Harriet Hawkins
Mark Roach, Rando Howard
Tim Ryan, Warren Kemp, Mark Roach
Mark Roach, Rebecca Austin
Mark Roach, Maisie Hull