Knowledge Counsel London
"The effect of such use has been to benefit the Defendant by more than £200,000. That being the position, the Defendant has not established that it would suffer substantial injustice… "
Construction
The Technology and Construction Court has rejected a challenge by the defendant employer to enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision which asserted that there had been a breach of the rules of natural justice because the adjudicator had used his own rates to calculate the amount due. The dispute arose under a JCT contract for construction of a leisure and retail centre and related to the valuation of the claimant contractor’s application for payment. The court held that because the adjudicator was asked to provide an overall gross valuation of the application, it was acceptable to come to a different view from the parties that he considered to be fair and reasonable based on the documents and submissions from the parties.
Clegg Food Projects Ltd v Prestige Car Direct Properties Ltd [2025] EWHC 2173 (TCC), 19 August 2025
Landlord and tenant
The management company of a block of flats needed to carry out urgent repair work that was going to cost up to £2.3m. There were insufficient funds in the reserve fund account to cover the costs but the lease agreements placed a limit on the amount of advanced expenditure it could recover through the service charge. The company applied to vary the leases under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s. 35(2)(e) to enable it to recover a higher sum through the advanced expenditure element of the service charge. If it could not do so, the work would have to wait until sufficient sums had built up in the fund. The First Tier Tribunal allowed the application and the Upper Tribunal dismissed the landlord and two leaseholders’ appeal.
Eastern Pyramid Group Corp SA v Spire House RTM Co Ltd [2025] UKUT 292 (LC), 4 September 2025
Construction
The High Court has found that a construction company was liable for injury to a cyclist that was caused when his bike hit the base of a traffic bollard that was in the cycle lane. The upper part had been removed leaving the base as an unmarked hazard on the road. The company were aware that vandalism was occurring and had no effective system in place to inspect or monitor the bollards when the site was closed but the cycle lane was in use.
Brown v Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Ltd [2025] EWHC 2204 (KB), 22 August 2025
Construction
In defence of an application to enforce an adjudicator’s award, the defendant had asserted that the claimant made a false statement in its application for appointment of an adjudicator. The claimant’s alleged intention was to seek an advantage and so the appointment would be a nullity. This would mean that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to make the award. The claimant’s application for summary judgment to enforce the award was dismissed. The defendant had a realistic prospect of successfully arguing that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction. The claimant had asserted without explanation that there was a conflict of interest with a previous adjudicator, when it was simply that the claimant had not paid that adjudicator’s fees.
RNJM Limited v Purpose Social Homes Limited [2025] EWHC 2224 (KB), 27 August 2025
Key contacts
Knowledge Counsel London
Partner London
