the dispute with HCP was made with WRB Energy Limited. WRB asserted that the
subcontract was with WRB Energy Ltd. That issue had been resolved for the time
being in the adjudication, where it was decided that WRB was the contracting
party entitled to the payment.
Next, the amount claimed was less by some £100 than the payment awarded by
the adjudicator due to an arithmetical error by WRB. Further, WRB had indicated
before the application that it would not pursue payment of the VAT, yet it now
sought summary judgment for the 'applicable VAT'. Finally, it had not included a
claim for the adjudicator's charges and costs in its application but still asked the
court to give judgment for that item.
The court gave judgment for the sum claimed in the summary judgment
application (corrected for the arithmetical error) and no more; no VAT as it was
not clear that a dormant company was registered for and liable to pay VAT; and
no adjudicator's charges and costs as these had not been claimed in the original
claim or application.
HCP asserted it had a substantial counterclaim and set off having overpaid WRB
and now sought a stay for a short period to enable it to adjudicate its cross claims.
It relied on the case of Wimbledon[15] grounds, namely that WRB was impecunious
and would be unable to repay the judgment sum if HCP succeeded on its cross
claims.
The judge quoted the principles paid out by HHJ Coulson QC (as he then was) in
Wimbledon : "(a) Adjudication … is designed to be a quick and inexpensive method of arriving at a temporary result in a construction dispute.
21
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online