Murnells London Ltd v Beale

By Part 7 proceedings issued by Murnells London Limited (“MLL”) on 10 June 2025, MLL sought a summary judgment against Christopher Beale (“Mr Beale”) by way of enforcement of a decision made by Andrew Essam (the “Adjudicator”) dated 14 May 2025 (the “Decision”), for Mr Beale having failed to abide by the outcome of the Decision.

Contractual Background

Mr Beale is the owner of Foxhill Manor in West Haddon, and he wished to carry out renovation works at the property. As a part of the tendering process organised by his contract administrator and quantity surveyor White & Lloyd (“WL”), a company named Murnells Limited (“ML”) (now in administration) were considered.

Mr Beale had a meeting with ML on 5 June 2023 following which a letter of intent (“LOI”) dated 9 June 2023 was signed by the sole director of ML on 13 June 2023. Following on from this, attempts were made to obtain full signatures of the building contract however, this was deferred as a result of the documents expiring on DocuSign.

When the document was reissued, ML refused to sign on the basis that the scope and the contract sums would need to be updated as they had moved on. It is accepted between the parties that all iterations of the unsigned building contract were identical. It is important to note here that the contractor stated in each iteration of the building contract was named as MLL – not ML.

Factual Background

The renovation works were delayed, and a “Formal delay notice/Request for Extension of Time” dated 14 May 2024 was sent by email on 15 May 2024. The extension of time was sought until 11 November 2024, and it named ML as the contractor.

An extension of time was not granted, and a formal Non-Completion Certificate was issued to ML on 18 November 2024. On 26 November, a termination letter was issued to MLL on the grounds of repudiatory breach of contract, including an allegation that MLL caused significant delays to the works. MLL responded noting that the termination was unlawful, and a termination account was issued. On 28 February, MLL served a first Notice of Adjudication, this was subsequently withdrawn, and a new Notice was served on 5 March 2025.

A Response was filed on 13 March 2025, within which a variety of issues were raised, two of which became jurisdictional issues of substance relied upon by Mr Beale within these enforcement proceedings. These jurisdictional issues were as follows:

1. The crystallisation issue – that the dispute regarding the extension of time had not arisen or crystallised on the basis that the extension of time claim was for an extension until 11 November 2024, whilst the Notice referred to an extension until 24 April 2025; and
2. The contracting entity issue – considering whether the building contract was made with ML or MLL and if the original adjudication had been brought by the incorrect party.

The Adjudicator rejected the jurisdictional challenges on the basis that WL had issued the building contract identifying MLL as the contractor, and as a result of the building contract being signed by a director of MLL in January 2024. This represented a contract concluded between Mr Beale and MLL and the extension of time was therefore granted.

Mr Beale failed to abide by this Decision and enforcement proceedings were brought by MLL.

Decision

As a preliminary point in these proceedings, counsel for MLL took issue with a number of matters raised in the skeleton argument for Mr Beale in relation to the issue of the contracting entity. Counsel for MLL took the position that these arguments raised should not be permitted on the basis that they were not raised previously. Counsel for Mr Beale put to the court that these arguments were founded on evidence already before the court, and that it cannot be correct, in the fast-track process of adjudication followed by enforcement, that last minute arguments cannot be presented as they come to light.

The judge considered the principles drawn from a number of previous cases, in particular the approach laid down by Coulson LJ in Bresco Electrical Services v Michael J Lonsdale [2019] EWCA Civ 27 being that the TCC should generally be wary of undermining the “pay now, argue later” approach. In considering this approach, the judge concluded that the court should be cautious in relation to general reservations which might be aimed at an impermissible level of expansion of jurisdictional issues at the enforcement stage. With that in mind, the expansions sought by Mr Beale were not permitted by the judge.

The court went on to consider the two jurisdictional issues highlighted above and found the following:

1. In relation to the contractual issue, despite the documentary evidence filed which frequently referenced ML, the contract that was actually executed was between Mr Beale and MLL and this was not disputed or clarified at the time. As a result, Mr Beale at best had fanciful prospects of successfully arguing that MLL was not a party to the building contract. The opposing arguments were therefore rejected; and
2. In relation to the crystallisation issue, the court found that the approach taken by Mr Beale is too narrow and requires a degree of particularisation which does not align with the court’s standard approach to crystallisation. Further to this, the court accepted that the only dispute which can arise is between Mr Beale and ML as a result of the first issue being dismissed, the dispute had therefore sufficiently crystallised in advance of the Notice.

On both of the above issues, Mr Beale failed to oppose the summary judgment and MLL was found to be entitled to the summary judgment that it sought.

A key conclusion which should be drawn from this case is the importance of proper checking ahead of execution to ensure that effective contracts are being entered into between the correct intended parties. The preliminary point considered by the court should also serve as a warning against relying on general reservations of rights in order to introduce new arguments at the enforcement stage, and a reminder to parties that the “pay now, argue later” approach is aimed at quick resolutions which relies on objections being raised in the early stages of an adjudication.