Articles from the Silver Shemmings Ash Team on contractual matters, recent case law changes and items of interest in the construction and property world
May 3, 2019 | Silver Shemmings
Adjudication-related Part 7 and Part 8 application not to be heard together in Willow Corp Sarl v MTD Contractors Ltd  EWHC 1192 (TCC) (03 May 2019)
In Hutton Construction Ltd v Wilson Properties (London) Ltd  EWHC 517
(TCC), Coulson J set out how parties should approach adjudication enforcement proceedings, adopting a “broadly consensual approach” to how Part 7 and Part 8 applications. In a departure from that guidance, because of the “unique circumstances” the parties found themselves in here, Fraser J ordered the Part 7 and Part 8 applications to be heard separately, as follows:
The judge seemed unimpressed with Willow’s reasons for seeking an adjournment (counsel’s unavailability and then awaiting the outcome of the Pepperall J trial). Counsel’s unavailability was “very rarely” a valid reason and not in adjudication enforcement, where matters should be heard promptly. The judge faced an unsatisfactory choice and appeared reluctant to order any departure from Hutton (mainly because of the “ethos of the Act” and the TCC’s policy of dealing with adjudication enforcement speedily). Consequently, he was careful to explain that this should not be seen as a relaxation of the Hutton principles.
You're in the right place! Just drop us a message. How can we help?