before the question would be suitable for Part 8. The court disagreed. The test was
that set out in Hutton and A&V Building Solutions and the TCC Guide. Applying that
test, the question was suitable for summary determination as there was no factual
dispute and no argument based on waiver.
Court decision summaries in full
Click on the options below to read a full summary and analysis. Enforcement of award – advisory award - Interaction with Part 8 claim Sleaford Building Services Ltd v Isoplus Piping Systems Ltd [2023] EWHC 969 (TCC)
Mr Alexander Nissen KC (28 April 2023)
Sleaford commenced an adjudication in which it sought various findings that its
subcontractor, IPS, was not entitled to any further milestone payments by reason of its failure to comply with various ‘prerequisites’ (or preconditions) to payment for a true valuation of the subcontract works and ‘advice’ that IPS had been negligent in its pipelaying, and that the payment prerequisites had not been complied with. It
concluded that IPS had been overpaid and sought repayment.
IPS denied it had been negligent, contended that the prerequisites were not
conditions precedent to payment, or that the payment terms failed to comply with
section 110 (1A) of the Act so that the Scheme applied, and claimed it was entitled to
a final milestone payment.
It was accepted that the adjudicator could make an award of money in favour of
either party.
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting