HT-2024-000423 - [2025] EWHC 942 (TCC)

On 16 December 2024, the Claimant issued these Part 8 proceedings and served its evidence in Smith 1.

On 8 January 2025, the Defendant served its evidence in response, i.e. Fincham 1.

On 24 January 2025, the Claimant then, unusually, made an application for a stay of its own proceedings “on a general basis”, with no right to apply to lift the stay until at least 3 months had passed. The grounds on which the Claimant applied for a stay were as follows: Smith 2, paragraphs 10-11:

“10.

Firstly, Jaevee has entered into a settlement agreement with a third party assignee of any debts alleged to be owed to Mr Fincham under the Contract.

11.

Secondly, and in any event, following receipt of the responsive evidence of Mr Fincham filed on 9 January 2025, it is apparent that there is potentially a single dispute of fact between the parties in relation to the date on which Fincham Demolition commenced the Demolition Works that could have a significant impact upon these proceedings, including whether they can continue in the Part 8 process.”

On 28 January 2025, the Defendant served a second witness statement, Fincham 2, responding to the application for a stay.

By an order dated 5 February 2025, Waksman J dismissed the Claimant’s application for a stay and gave directions to this hearing. At paragraph 6, the Court ordered that the costs of and incidental to the directions, including the application, were reserved to this hearing. Waksman J’s reasons were as follows:

“8.

There is no need for a stay here. Despite the matters raised by Mr Smith’s witness statement dated 28 January 2025 (and it is noted that he has provided no evidence of the Claimant’s payments to the alleged assignee, whereas Mr Fincham has offered disclosure of his bank statements) the core question remains that of contract formation on the basis of the documents referred to by the Adjudicator.

9.

Nor does the question of the actual start date appear to affect that core question.

10.

In a situation where the Defendant presently has an enforceable judgment against the Claimant made by DJ Baldwin on9 December 2024, and where the Claimant now seeks to demonstrate that the Adjudicator’s decision is wrong, albeit that there is no stay of DJ Baldwin’s judgment, it is essential that these matters are determined as soon as possible. As it happens, because of when the Court is able to accommodate this matter, the Claimant will have a month since it made its application for a stay to file any further evidence.

11.

If, despite all the above, the Judge at the hearing takes the view that the matters cannot be resolved by the Part 8 Claim and a Part 7 claim is more appropriate, he can order to that effect at that time.”

The suggestion that there had been a settlement agreement with a third party assignee of any debts alleged to be owed to Mr Fincham under the Contract was not pursued before me.