Case Nos: HT-2025-LIV-000002 - [2025] EWHC 591 (TCC)

Case Nos: HT-2025-LIV-000002

HT-2025-LIV-000005

[2025] EWHC 591 (TCC)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN LIVERPOOL

TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT (KBD)

Date 13^th March 2025

Before:

DISTRICT JUDGE BALDWIN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

	GROVE CONSTRUCTION (LONDON) LIMITED -and- BAGSHOT MANOR LIMITED	Part 7 Claimant / Part 8 Defendant
		Part 7 Defendant / Part 8 Claimant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr William Charlesworth (instructed by Bexley Beaumont Limited)

for the Part 7 Claimant / Part 8 Defendant

Mr Max Twivy (instructed by K & L Gates LLP)

for the Part 7 Defendant / Part 8 Claimant

Hearing date: 25^th February 2025

--------------------------------------

Judgment (Approved)

-------------------------------------

[ I shall continue to refer to the Part 7 Claimant as “the Claimant” and the Part 8 Claimant as “the Defendant” and I shall refer to the pages from the hearing bundle thus: [x] ]

Introduction – the matters before the Court

By Part 7 proceedings dated 3^rd December 2024 and an accompanying application supported by the witness statement of Brandon Silver of the same date, the Claimant seeks summary judgment against the Defendant in the sum of £112,337.16 plus VAT, through the procedure approved of by the TCC, by way of enforcement of the decision of Anthony Bingham acting as adjudicator in a construction dispute, that decision being dated 18^th November 2024. By Order dated 13^th January 2025 Waksman J transferred the proceedings to the TCC at Liverpool and certified that they are suitable for disposal by a District Judge.

Although the Defendant opposes the application in what might be described as a traditional way, by means of arguing that the adjudicator acted outwith his jurisdiction, by way of additional and, indeed, connected opposition to the application, the Defendant has brought Part 8 proceedings for declarations, dated 29^th January 2025, the parties having agreed on 17^th January 2025 that the nature of this Part 8 claim was such that it would fall within the limited grounds of suitability to be heard at the same time as the above application.

The Claimant, nevertheless, attempted to resile from this position today, on the grounds that it now felt that factual evidence was required in the context of clause 7.1 of the construction contract, namely whether the Defendant falls within the category of assignee referred to therein, “company… providing finance in connection with the Works”. I refused, by way of preliminary issue, to adjourn the Part 8 claim on that basis and I have heard the application and the claim simultaneously, being grateful to both Counsel for their assistance.

I have taken into account, inter alia, the witness statements provided in the hearing bundle, the deed of assignment (“the deed”) [177ff], the adjudication documentation including the decision [33ff] and the oral submissions of Counsel.