Stay Providence Building Service Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd [2025] Mayor’s & City of London Court [M20CL073] HHJ Parfitt (judgment 22 September 2025) There had been two adjudications between the parties following disputes arising under a JCT Design and Build Contract in 2016 for the construction of a residential development. In the first adjudication, Hexagon (the employer) successfully challenged the validity of Providence’s (the contractor) termination. Providence later successfully appealed against that finding in the Court of Appeal. Off the back of this, they started a second adjudication, claiming damages upon a termination final account. They succeeded before the adjudicator – who, based on the finding of the Court of Appeal that its termination was lawful – awarded them £440,587. Hexagon appealed to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal finding, and that appeal was pending. In the current proceedings in the Mayor’s and City of London Court, Providence sought summary judgment to enforce the second adjudicator’s award. Hexagon applied for a stay of execution of the judgment on the grounds that Providence was in financial difficulties and would be unable to repay the adjudication sum if called upon to do so. This would be the case if the Supreme Court upheld its appeal that Providence’s termination had been unlawful. The legal basis for a stay was Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 83.7(4). On the evidence, the court found that Providence would not be able to repay the adjudication sum if ordered to do so. Its net asset position had changed from £1.1 million before the contract to £371,006 by June 2024. That change was not caused by Hexagon’s failure to pay the adjudication sum, but by litigation costs and other unrelated matters, such that the exceptions laid down in Wimbledon v Vago [11] did not apply. The court took the view that Hexagon had at least an arguable case that Providence had not lawfully terminated the contract, noting its right to payment was entirely dependent on the validity of the termination. Providence claimed that it would suffer ‘manifest injustice’ if a stay was granted and that winding up proceedings to which it would be susceptible might intervene. The court declined to equate ‘manifest injustice’ with the ‘special circumstances’ that were required by CPR 83 before a stay might be avoided. The hearing of the appeal to the Supreme Court was by then imminent (10 November 2025). Granting the stay, the court considered the tension between the need to uphold the adjudication regime and the potential consequences of Providence’s financial difficulties. It held it would be inexpedient to allow enforcement prior to the Supreme Court outcome, which might mean that Hexagon succeeded but was unable to recover the judgment sum. It found this risk outweighed the risks of keeping Providence out of its
13
www.ciarb.org
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting