HT-2023-000006 - [2024] EWHC 2914 (TCC)

Fecha: 15-Nov-2024

The outcome of the proceedings

Describing the outcome of the proceedings before the Court is somewhat complicated by the interplay between previous adjudications and the Court proceedings and between different Court proceedings.

In my judgment on the merits (fifth judgment of 18 June 2024) I set out in a table the rival amounts claimed:

Item	A & V	J&BH	Difference
Measured Works	£413,940.00	£338,683.35	£75,256.65
Variations	£67,200.00	£39,228.00	£27,972.00
A & V Breaches and Losses (Footnote: ¹)	£645,100.45	£0.00	£645,100.45
JBH Contra Charges	£0.00	(£88,069.61)	£88,069.61
Mr Blizzard Adjudicator Fees	£17,400	£0.00	£17,400.00
Mr Smith Adjudicator Fees	(£13,962.00)	(£13,962.00)	£0.00
Enforcement proceedings costs	(£20,822.00)	(£20,822.00)	£0.00
Paid to date	(£364,909.64)	(£364,909.64)	£0.00
Total	£743,946.81	(£109,851.90)	£853,798.71

I now set out the same table updated to reflect my judgments 5, 6 and 7, but including comments:

Item	A & V	J&BH	Difference	Amount Awarded	Comment
Measured Works	£413,940.00	£338,683.35	£75,256.65	£407,156	A & V were substantially the winners on this head of claim.
Variations	£67,200.00	£39,228.00	£27,972.00	£53,200	A & V were substantially the winners on this head of claim
A & V Breaches and Losses (Footnote: ²)	£645,100.45	£0.00	£645,100.45	£6096.56	A & V had a number of claims contained within this one line item. As the figures show, A & V did not succeed on their claims save to a very minor extent. The position as to success or failure is somewhat complicated by the Court’s conclusion on who was guilty of repudiatory breach. This is discussed further below.
JBH Contra Charges	£0.00	(£88,069.61)	£88,069.61	£0.00	A & V was the winner in respect of this claim
Mr Blizzard Adjudicator Fees	£17,400	£0.00	£17,400.00	£17,400	A & V was the winner in respect of this head of claim, but an attempt to recover a further £17,400 under this head failed.
Mr Smith Adjudicator Fees	(£13,962.00)	(£13,962.00)	£0.00	(£13,962.0)	J&BH’s entitlement to this sum had previously been affirmed in earlier enforcement proceedings. A & V attempted in this action to obtain an order reversing its liability in respect of this sum but failed: see judgment No. 7. Thus J&BH are to be considered the winner in respect of this issue.
Enforcement proceedings costs	(£20,822.00)	(£20,822.00)	£0.00	(£20,822.0)	This sum had been awarded to J&BH in the enforcement proceedings. In these proceedings this figure is only relevant to the orders as to payment which I consider below.
Paid to date	(£364,909.64)	(£364,909.64)	£0.00	(£364,909.64)	This was an agreed figure: in judgment No. 7 I refused an attempt by A & V to introduce a different figure

The figures above do not include VAT. In Judgment No 7 I awarded VAT bringing the amount ordered in respect of the first two items (Measured Works and Variations) to £96,535.83 as follows:

Measured works		£407,156.25
Variation account		£53,200
Less paid		-£364,909.64

Amount due		£95,466.61
VAT at 20%		£1,069.22
Total		£96,535.83

Judgment No. 7 also considered entitlement to interest, and set out principles to be applied.

In respect of the matters dealt with in this judgment, as different calculations as to interest have to be made at different dates by reason of various offers discussed below, I set out at each relevant date point what I find to be the amount held due at that date.