lump sums stated in the subcontract meant IPS could not demonstrate the sums
included for sub-subcontractors, so nothing was due.
The proper approach to combined Part 7 and Part 8 claims
As a matter of procedure, the court said that as the Part 8 claim had already been
issued in London, the Part 7 proceedings for enforcement should also have been
issued there to avoid the waste of court administrative resources in transferring the
same, as required by the TCC Guide and case law.
The proper approach to these two sets of proceedings was identified in A&V Building
Solutions Ltd v J&B Hopkins Ltd. 6
" The proper approach to parallel proceedings was outlined by O'Farrell J in Structure
Consulting Limited v Maroush Food Production Limited [2017] EWHC 962 (TCC). The
judge should usually give judgment on the claim based on the adjudicator's decision and then – to the extent possible – endeavour to sort out the Part 8 proceedings. The same point was made in Hutton Construction Limited v Wilson
Properties (London) Ltd [2017] EWHC 517 (TCC); [2017] BLR 344, where the judge said
that the Part 8 claim should be dealt with after the enforcement unless the point
raised was straightforward and self-contained, and the parties were agreed that it
could be dealt with at the enforcement application without adding to the time estimate.”
The court also took the view that as regards the question ‘ Is there any defence to the Part claim? ’ the three -stage test in Hutton was not applicable in this instance. It only arose in the context of the suitability of the Part 8 proceedings.
6 [2023] EWCA Civ 54 by Coulson J at [38].
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting