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

Indigo Projects London Ltd v Razin & Anor [2019] EWHC 1205 (TCC)

21st May 2019

In Indigo Projects London Ltd v Razin & Or [2019] EWHC 1205 (TCC) Arthur Graham-Dixon represented the Claimant contractor in relation to its application for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision, as well as the Defendant’s application for a stay of execution.

The Claimant had obtained an adjudication award for payment of the sum stated in an interim payment application, where no pay less notice had been served in time. After issuing proceedings to enforce the award, the Claimant entered into a company voluntary arrangement (CVA). The CVA included an express term that only the balance of cross-claims between the Claimant and any of its creditors could be claimed by the Claimant or a creditor under the CVA. This accounting exercise was due to be undertaken by the CVA supervisors.

The Defendants argued that enforcement would interfere with that accounting exercise, in circumstances where it was the Defendants’ position that the sum awarded by the adjudicator did not represent the true value of the work done and that they also had counterclaims for defective work and delay.

This was unlike previously decided cases, in that the CVA followed the adjudication decision and the application to enforce. However, applying Bouygues v Dahl-Jensen [2001] All ER (Comm) 1041 and Westshield v Whitehouse [2014] Bus LR 268, Sir Antony Edwards-Stuart held that enforcement would interfere with the CVA supervisors’ accounting exercise. The adjudication decision was, in effect, nothing more than an order for payment on account and would have no effect on the result of the account taken by the supervisors. Summary judgment was not granted.

Arthur Graham-Dixon was instructed by Candey LLP for the Claimant.

To real the full judgment please click here.

21 May 2019





Related Juristictions

Register for updates

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

 

Register