Case No. HT-2025-000039 , HT-2-25-000040 - [2025] EWHC 2005 (TCC)

I turn then to address the enforcement application.

CPR Part 24.3 provides that:

“The Court may give summary judgment against a Claimant or Defendant on the whole of a claim or on an issue if:

(a)

it considers that the party has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim, defence or issue; and

(b)

there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial”.

It is not suggested that subparagraph (b) is relevant in the context of this case, and so I focus on whether Mr and Mrs James have a real prospect of succeeding on their defence. The Court’s approach to summary judgment applications is well known and does not require extensive citation here. I remind myself of the principles applicable to applications for summary judgment as formulated by Lewison J, as he then was in Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)and as approved by the Court of Appeal in AC Ward and Son v Catlin (Five) Ltd & Others [2009] EWCA Civ 1098. This is all helpfully summarised in The White Book at paragraph 24.3.2, and I have it well in mind. In particular, I note that the Court must consider whether the defendant has a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. A realistic claim is one that carries some degree of conviction. This means a claim that is more than merely arguable. I should not conduct a mini-trial. I bear all this in mind when approaching the summary judgment issue in this case.

The correct approach to summary judgment in an adjudication enforcement claim where a jurisdictional defence is raised was addressed by Akenhead J in Estor Ltd v Multifit (UK) Ltd [2009] EWHC 2108:

“20.

It is common in the Technology and Construction Court that if the jurisdictional point raised is simply a matter of law, for instance of contractual or statutory construction, the Court will be able to deal with the matter summarily even if there are proper arguments about jurisdiction.

22.

The position is different, however, if the jurisdictional challenge is dependent upon fact and evidence.”

That is the position in this case, and so I have to consider whether, on the evidence before the Court, the Defendants have no real prospect of succeeding on the defence.

Mr and Mrs James take two points, both of which they took in the adjudication and both of which were decided against them. The residential occupier point is a point which is fact-sensitive. The question, therefore, is whether Mr and Mrs James have a real prospect of succeeding on that issue. The second point that they take is that they served a valid payless notice, which is a point of pure law. Regardless of my decision on the residential occupier point, I am invited by Mr Hanna for Mr and Mrs James to decide that point finally and to give an appropriate declaration under CPR Part 8 if appropriate. It is agreed by Mr Frampton for RBH that this is the approach I should take.