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

LXB RP (Crown Road) Ltd v Squibb Group Ltd [2016] EWHC 2669

21st Sep 2016

The Claimant, LXB, applied for a summary judgment to enforce the decision of the adjudicator, Mr Riches, given on 7 July 2016 that LXB was entitled to payment by the defendant, Squibb, being the balance of the liquidated and ascertained damages.

The Defendant sought to stay enforcement on the basis that the Claimant was a special purpose vehicle with limited assets and would be unable to repay the sums awarded if subsequently ordered to do so.

Mr Justice Stuart-Smith decided that the grounds for resisting enforcement were not made out based on the financial information available and, in any event, the Claimant had always been a special purpose vehicle.

Judgment was entered for the Claimant.

Edmund Neuberger appeared on behalf of the Claimant.

The full judgment is available from Lexis®Library.





Register for updates

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

 

Register