Harlow & Milner Ltd -v- Linda Teasdale
Case reference:
[2006] EWHC 54 (TCC)
Monday, 16 January 2006
Key terms: Adjudicator’s Decision - Enforcement - Statutory Demand - Fairness- Costs - Indemnity Basis
On 19 May 2005 an adjudicator gave a decision awarding the Claimant £90,194.53 including interest. The Claimant commenced proceedings in the TCC and also an application for bankruptcy in the Bradford County Court, which had been withdrawn. The statutory demand was set aside by consent and the parties agreed that any liability for costs would be referred to the TCC Judge.
The Defendant was not represented, but raised three issues in the bankruptcy proceedings. First, that the work was defective, second, that the proceedings were unfair and finally, that the Claimant would be unable to repay any amount that might be found to be due to the Defendant.
His Honour Judge Coulson QC dismissed these points. It was clear that any issues of defective work would need to be resolved by way of a separate adjudication rather. Mere allegations were insufficient. The adjudication procedure was not unfair, and there was no evidence that the Claimant might be unable to repay any amount that might subsequently be found to be due to be repaid.
In respect of costs, the Claimant was entitled to its costs on an indemnity basis. However, in respect of the costs of the bankruptcy proceedings, the judge made no order, thus leaving the parties to bear their own costs of those proceedings in the Bradford County Court.
The Defendant was not represented, but raised three issues in the bankruptcy proceedings. First, that the work was defective, second, that the proceedings were unfair and finally, that the Claimant would be unable to repay any amount that might be found to be due to the Defendant.
His Honour Judge Coulson QC dismissed these points. It was clear that any issues of defective work would need to be resolved by way of a separate adjudication rather. Mere allegations were insufficient. The adjudication procedure was not unfair, and there was no evidence that the Claimant might be unable to repay any amount that might subsequently be found to be due to be repaid.
In respect of costs, the Claimant was entitled to its costs on an indemnity basis. However, in respect of the costs of the bankruptcy proceedings, the judge made no order, thus leaving the parties to bear their own costs of those proceedings in the Bradford County Court.