1)
Injunction
to
restrain Marbank
In dismissing the application for an injunction, O’Farrell J noted that the first respondent had a right to commence adjudication proceedings at any time. It was not for the applicant to dictate when that might be. Whilst it was accepted that the adjudication proceedings would entail irrecoverable costs, this was simply a feature of the process. The court was alive to the tactical nature of the first respondents’ conduct (in commencing three sets of adjudication proceedings) but this again was a common part of adjudication. Taken together these features did not amount to unreasonable or oppressive behaviour. The court considered and distinguished Mentmore Towers Ltd v Packman Lucas Ltd[6] as the adjudications had not been enforced and the first respondent was not in breach of any court order. However and significantly, Her Ladyship accepted that if the subject matter of the adjudications were to trespass on a court decision, that could prevent the adjudicator from having jurisdiction and it would follow, the court from enforcing any decision. The court was reluctant following the reasoning of Lord Briggs in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd[7] to interfere in adjudication.
adjudication Construction
–
Ltd G&D Brickwork Contractors Ltd [2021] EWHC 1985 (TCC) 28 June 2021 O’Farrell J v In the exercise of its discretion a court may grant an injunction to restrain a party from pursuing an adjudication pursuant to s37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 applying American Cyanamid principles. It was now well-established that in the context of the Act, the court would only interfere with an ongoing or threatened adjudication in limited circumstance. Here it was alleged the referrals to adjudication had been brought unreasonably and oppressively. The background was that the first respondent sub-contractor had taken proceedings in the County Court for sums it claimed it was owed by the applicant contractor over three construction projects it had contracted to work on for the applicant. The County Court proceedings were struck out, and this lead the respondent to refer the three disputes to adjudication. The second respondent in this application was the adjudicator in all three adjudications. Further adjudications were also intimated. The applicant argued that the adjudications were unreasonable and oppressive in that they raised the same or substantially the same issues as the County Court proceedings which had been struck out. It intended to pursue Part 8 proceedings to deal with these jurisdictional points and needed an injunction to give it time to do so.
The question of jurisdiction was a matter that could and should be dealt with at the enforcement stage.
[6] [2010] EWHC 457 (TCC) [7] UKSC 25
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter maker