In respect of a stay of execution, the principles to be applied were those set down inWimbledon[13]. The court found that the adjudicator had made a serious error in respect of the awards of interest. He had applied a rate of 0.5% per week instead of the rate of 0.16% per week provide for by the contract. The rate was not a penal rate however since it was what the parties had agreed. The awards had to be enforced despite this error. The Judge said: “The justice of this case demands that in these particular circumstances the court takes a broad brush approach.” He ordered that judgment be entered for the full amount of each award including interest. On the balance of the expert evidence although the plaintiff was not insolvent, its financial position was such that it was unlikely to be able to repay the full amount of the judgment together with the very substantial interest awards, if required to do so. The court ordered a stay of execution of the judgment sums for 14 days, after which there was to be a general stay as to the sum of £120,000, split £80,000 to the Springfield Contract and £40,000 to the Ardoyne Contract, until further order.
Comment
It was perhaps inevitable that judgment would be entered for the full amount but the court was able to ameliorate the injustice that would otherwise have resulted from such a massive over payment of interest by granting a partial stay. This case was decided in April 2020 well before JRT, yet we see pre-echoes of the manifest injustice question considered in JRT. It is also instructive to note that English case law was followed and fully applied.
[13] Wimbledon Construction Co 2000 Limited v Derek Vago (see footnote 8 above)
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker