Cookie consent

This website uses cookies to collect information about how you use this website. Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookies on atkinchambers.com

Cookies are files saved on your phone, tablet or computer when you visit a website.

Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookie settings

Atkin Chambers Limited use two types of cookie files, analytical cookies and necessary cookies. You can choose which cookies you are happy for us to use.

Analytical cookies that measure website use

Atkin Chambers Limited use Google Analytics to measure how you use the website so it can be improved based on user needs. Atkin Chambers do not allow Google to use or share the data about how you use this site.

Google Analytics sets cookies that store anonymised information about:

  • how you got to the site
  • the pages you visit on atkinchambers.com, and how long you spend on each page
  • what you click on while you’re visiting the site

Strictly necessary cookies

These essential cookies do things like remember your progress through a form (for example if you register for updates). They always need to be on.

Save changes

Mathias Cheung successful in enforcing adjudicator’s decision in DSVG v Conneely (HT2018-000113)

28th Jun 2018

Mathias Cheung acted for the claimant in DSVG v Conneely. His application for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision was granted on 13 June 2018.

The matter was in respect of interim payment for labour of cladding installation works. This case raised interesting issues for the first time as to the effect of Grove Developments Ltd v S&T (UK) Ltd [2018] EWHC 123 (TCC) on the scope of an adjudicator’s jurisdiction in “smash and grab” adjudications, as well as the proper procedure for parties who wish to challenge enforcement on the basis of a Part 8 claim.

Applying Grove v S&T, Deputy High Court Judge Joanna Smith QC held that the dispute referred by the Notice of Adjudication in this case was limited to the issue of the pay less notice, and the issue of the true valuation was a separate dispute not referred to the adjudicator. The Referral Notice and other subsequent submissions cannot and did not enlarge the adjudicator’s jurisdiction. Given that there was no valid pay less notice in this case, the adjudicator was entitled to reject the valuation issue and did not fail to exhaust his jurisdiction or act in breach of natural justice.

The learned judge also held that it was inappropriate for the losing party to seek substantive declarations by means of a mere Defence and Counterclaim in enforcement proceedings, in the light of the guidance given by Coulson J (as he then was) in Hutton Construction Ltd v Wilson Properties (London) Ltd [2017] EWHC 517 (TCC), and a prompt Part 8 claim should have been issued.

For further details please click here (Subscription required).

Mathias Cheung instructed by Trowers & Hamlins for the claimant

13 June 2018





Related Juristictions

Register for updates

To keep in touch with news and updates from Atkin Chambers:

 

Register