after publishing his decision, the reasons in the decision were sufficient and it had not been necessary for him to provide calculations of each item in the global valuation.
Natural justice – reliance on unsolicited surrejoinder See Construction Muzzy Ltd (above)
Payment – can a payment notice serve as a pay less notice? Vision Construct Ltd v Gypcraft Drylining Contractors Ltd [2025] EWHC 2707 (TCC) Adrian Williamson KC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court (judgment 21 October 2025) Vision Construct Ltd (VCL) sought declarations by way of Part 8 proceedings, concerning the payment provisions of a subcontract based on an amended JCT form of contract. They contended that the adjudicator had been wrong on three counts. First, to find Gypcraft’s application for payment number 23 was a valid payment application in accordance with the subcontract. Second, that VCL’s payment notice was in time, relying on an estoppel by convention allowing the payment notice to be given after the date in the valuation and payment schedule to the subcontract. Third and finally, VCL said that if its payment notice was out of time, it was also an effective pay less notice and unarguably in time. The court held that the payment notice was effective in accordance with the subcontract; that the estoppel argument required evidence and was unsuitable for determination in the evidence-free zone of Part 8; and that VCL’s payment notice was what it said it was, and could not be converted retrospectively into a pay less notice. Although not a case upon the enforcement of adjudicator’s award, it is reported briefly for its reasons for rejecting a payment notice as being an effective pay less notice. Stay Providence Building Service Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd [2025] Mayor’s & City of London Court [M20CL073] HHJ Parfitt (judgment 22 September 2025) A stay of execution against the adjudicator’s award was granted pending the imminent hearing in the Supreme Court of an appeal by Hexagon against the decision of the Court of Appeal in favour of Providence as to the validity of the termination of the contract by Providence. This gave rise to the award where: • The appeal had an arguable prospect of success; • Providence would be unable to repay the sum awarded by the adjudicator if ordered to do so; • The inability to repay was not caused by any of the Wimbledon exceptions; and
4
www.ciarb.org
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting