Capital Structures Plc -v- Time & Tide Construction Ltd
Case reference:
[2006] EWHC 591 (TCC)
Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Key terms: Enforcement of Adjudicator’s award - jurisdiction - economic duress - repudiatory breach
The claimant sought summary judgment for interest arising from an Adjudicator’s decision in respect of a settlement agreement. The defendant resisted on the basis that the Adjudicator had no jurisdiction because the agreement resulted from economic duress.
The claimant was a cladding subcontractor engaged by the defendant. As a result of issues arising between the parties a settlement agreement was made on 20 April 2004. Before then, on 8 April the defendant had served Clause 29.2 Notice under the DON 1 terms stating that the claimant had suspended the works unreasonably and that the contract would be determined if the suspension continued for a further ten days. There was at the time a known issue with regard to the quality of the balcony materials. The defendant paid the majority of the settlement amount, but retains £20,000 in order to deal with the bolted connections to the balcony. That matter was referred to adjudication and the adjudicator awarded the defendant the retained sum of £20,000 together with fees and interest.
The claimant now argued that the agreement should be avoided for duress.
HHJ Kirkham decided that was an arguable “albeit shadowy” case in respect of economic duress. If that were established then the adjudicator would not have any jurisdiction. On that basis she decided that she would give leave to defend on the basis that the defendant paid the sum of £20,000 into Court. Costs were reserved to the trial judge.
The claimant was a cladding subcontractor engaged by the defendant. As a result of issues arising between the parties a settlement agreement was made on 20 April 2004. Before then, on 8 April the defendant had served Clause 29.2 Notice under the DON 1 terms stating that the claimant had suspended the works unreasonably and that the contract would be determined if the suspension continued for a further ten days. There was at the time a known issue with regard to the quality of the balcony materials. The defendant paid the majority of the settlement amount, but retains £20,000 in order to deal with the bolted connections to the balcony. That matter was referred to adjudication and the adjudicator awarded the defendant the retained sum of £20,000 together with fees and interest.
The claimant now argued that the agreement should be avoided for duress.
HHJ Kirkham decided that was an arguable “albeit shadowy” case in respect of economic duress. If that were established then the adjudicator would not have any jurisdiction. On that basis she decided that she would give leave to defend on the basis that the defendant paid the sum of £20,000 into Court. Costs were reserved to the trial judge.