HT-2024-BHM-000012 - [2024] EWHC 2800 (TCC)

This case concerns an application by the Claimant for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's award following the Defendant’s failure to issue a pay less notice and a cross application by the Defendant for a stay of enforcement of the judgment. The Defendant did not dispute that the Adjudicator’s award was enforceable and that the Claimant is entitled to summary judgment. However, it had concerns about the Claimant’s solvency and its ability to repay the judgment following proceedings for a determination of the true value of the sums due between the parties. The only ground on which it resisted the Claimant’s application was that it sought a stay of the enforcement of the judgment to which it accepted the Claimant was entitled.

Before proceedings were issued, the Defendant raised its concerns with the Claimant and indicated it would seek a stay of enforcement. In correspondence, it asked the Claimant to demonstrate its ability to repay the award if the Defendant was successful in its claim for repayment of the Adjudicator’s award in due course.

The Claimant refused to provide more information until after the Defendant had made its application to stay enforcement. In response to the Defendant’s evidence, the Claimant filed evidence as to its ability to repay the award. As soon as that evidence was filed, the Defendant indicated it would not pursue its application for a stay.

The only issue before me is the question of the costs of the application to enforce the award and the application to stay enforcement.

In these applications, the Claimant was represented by George Eyre of counsel and the Defendant by James Malam of counsel. I am grateful to them for their submissions and for the skeleton arguments they provided.

Despite the hearing having been listed for 2 ½ hours, and despite Mr Eyre’s optimism that the hearing would take less than that length of time given the narrow issues, there was insufficient time to deliver judgment at the end of the hearing.