Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 278 24 March 2026

Adjudication

The Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) has upheld an adjudication decision in part where the validity of both the payment notice and pay less notice were in question. The adjudicator held that both notices were invalid and awarded approx. £5.6m to the contractor. The TCC considered that the pay less notice was valid, despite its calculations beginning with the incorrect figure from the payment notice. There was no authority that the pay less notice was contaminated by the defective payment notice. The sums to be deducted were otherwise sufficiently detailed and correct. Clause 4.9.3 of the contract provided relief for the contractor in these circumstances. The TCC therefore awarded the contractor the sum applied for of approx. £5.6m less the valid deductions from the pay less notice.

Laing O’Rourke Delivery Ltd v Shepperton Studios Ltd [2026] EWHC 612 (TCC), 16 March 2026

Jurisdiction

The Commercial Court has continued interim anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions granted against Eurotel as alleged assignee of rights under agreements for the supply of chemicals. The supply agreements contained clauses providing that disputes should be referred to LCIA arbitration in London, but Eurotel commenced proceedings against Maxamcorp in the Russian courts. The court held that it had jurisdiction over Maxam’s application for relief and that England was the proper place to bring the claim in support of the arbitration proceedings. The court rejected an argument that the injunctive relief sought might fragment the claim brought in the Russian proceedings. Where the parties had express arbitration agreements, such arguments were unmeritorious. Eurotel was required to take all necessary steps to adjourn or stay the Russian proceedings and set aside a judgment in those proceedings.

Maxamcorp International SL (a company incorporated in the Kingdom of Spain) v Eurotel LLC [2026] EWHC 666 (Comm), 13 March 2026

Contract interpretation

Visa and Luxottica entered into a settlement agreement for claims of breaches of competition law in relation to card payment fees. A few months after the settlement was concluded Luxottica completed the acquisition of GrandVision NV which also had similar claims against Visa. The Commercial Court held that the settlement agreement was binding in relation to the GrandVision claims as those claims fell within the definition of “Settled Claims” in the agreement. Luxottica was obliged to ensure that those claims were withdrawn. It was also required to indemnify Visa in respect of those claims. The court rejected the argument that there had been “sharp practice” by Visa. The settlement was expressly framed to catch known and unknown claims, the parties had been professionally advised and negotiations were arms length.

Visa Inc and others v Luxottica Retail UK Ltd [2026] EWHC 615 (Comm), 17 March 2026

Landlord and tenant

The Court of Appeal has reversed a decision of a lower court in relation to whether a property made up of several blocks fell within the definition of “building” for the purposes of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The decision would impact whether the landlord had to sever the transaction where it proposed to dispose of the property and how to serve notices of rights of first refusal for the tenants. The court gave guidance on how to determine whether multiple blocks were one building, involving consideration of whether the blocks were within a functionally integrated built envelope. It held that Block A constituted a single building, with Blocks B, C and E forming a second building as they shared an entrance, stairwell, utilities and plant room. As a result, the notices shared in relation to the blocks were valid.

SGL 1 Ltd v FSV Freeholders Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 267, 13 March 2026