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

Christopher Linnett Ltd v Harding (t/a M J Harding Contractors) [2017] EWHC 1781 (TCC)

25th Jul 2017

The Claimants (a well-known adjudicator and his company) claimed statutory interest, statutory fixed late payment charges and debt recovery costs following late payment of adjudicator’s fees by the Defendant contractor, Mr Harding. The claim was made pursuant to the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (the “1998 Act”) and certain express written terms of the adjudicator’s agreement.

It was an unusually low-value claim for the TCC, but one that raised some interesting and novel legal issues of importance not only to adjudicators, but more widely.

The Defendant argued (1) that there was no agreement with the First Claimant and that the agreement with Second Claimant did not incorporate the written terms relied upon, (2) that he was a “consumer”, and the contract was a “distance contract”, such that he had a right to cancel the agreement under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (the “Regulations”), and (3) he was not “acting in the course of a business”, such that the 1998 Act did not apply.

The Court found that an adjudicator’s agreement had been concluded between the Second Claimant and Harding, and that it incorporated the written terms the Claimants had relied upon. The Defendant had no right of cancellation under the Regulations because he was not a “consumer” and this was not a “distance contract”. The Defendant had been acting in the course of a business, such that he was liable for statutory interest, fixed compensation and the agreed debt recovery costs.

To view the full judgment please click here.

Instructed by Simmons & Simmons LLP for the Claimants

Related barrister Omar Eljadi

25 July 2017





Related Juristictions

Register for updates

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

 

Register