![HT-2025-LIV-000010 - [2025] EWHC 2258 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png){kind=logo}
Heading
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN LIVERPOOL
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT (KBD)
Before:
DISTRICT JUDGE BALDWIN
Between:
CONSTRUCTION MUZZY LIMITED -and- DAVIS CONSTRUCTION (SOUTH EAST) LIMITED | Claimant | |
Defendant |
Mr Kort Egan (instructed by Trowers & Hamlins LLP)
for the Claimant
Mr William Lacey (instructed by BTMK Solicitors)
for the Defendant
Hearing date: 7th August 2025
--------------------------------------
Judgment (Approved)
-------------------------------------
[I shall continue to refer to pages from the hearing bundle thus: [x] ]
Introduction – the matters before the Court by way of an enforcement hearing
As already introduced in my previous decision on the scope of today’s hearing, but worthy of repetition here, by Part 7 proceedings issued on 25th March 2025 and an accompanying application supported by the first witness statement of Paul Scott of 21st March 2025, the Claimant seeks summary judgment against the Defendant in the sum of £261,191.44 plus ongoing interest, through the procedure approved of by the TCC, by way of enforcement of two decisions of Leigh Belasco acting as a construction dispute adjudicator (“the Adjudicator”), those decisions being dated 20th January 2025 and 8th March 2025 respectively, the Defendant having failed to abide by the outcome of those adjudications. By Order of 1st May 2025 Waksman J transferred the proceedings to the TCC at Liverpool and certified that they are suitable for disposal by a District Judge.
The Defendant acknowledged service on 13th May 2025 and filed a Defence and Counterclaim dated 21st May 2025. The Defence [22], in addition to averring that the Adjudicator fell into error when determining that documents sent by the Claimant on 26th and 31st July 2024 respectively were interim payment applications and seeking a declaration to that effect by way of the Counterclaim [33 – 36] (“Issue 1”), raises matters of jurisdiction and breach of the rules of natural justice across both adjudications (“Issues 2 – 4”), which the parties agree are amenable to determination summarily by way of this hearing of the above application.
This judgment is my decision on enforcement of both adjudications, having heard submissions, for which I am grateful, from both Counsel, supplementing their further skeleton arguments and being referred once more to the 1022 page hearing bundle and the new authorities bundle. The Defendant relies upon a witness statement of Gabriella Shepherd of the Defendant’s solicitors dated 21st May 2025 and the Claimant relies further upon the second statement of Paul Scott dated 30th May 2025, to the extent that they are relevant to the residual issues.