Recently, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) handed down an important judgment which clarifies and expands the law with regard to the circumstances in which the Courts will grant summary judgment of an adjudicator’s decision or order a stay of execution in favour of a party who is insolvent.
In J A Ball Limited (in Administration) v St Philips Homes (Courthaulds) Ltd (citation to be confirmed), Browne Jacobson’s Michael Sadler and Gavin Hoccom successfully represented St Philips Homes (Courthaulds) Limited (St Philips) in defending adjudication enforcement proceedings pursued by J A Ball Limited (in Administration) (J A Ball), a former main contractor.
In keeping with established principles, the TCC refused to enforce the adjudicator’s decision because the adjudicator breached the rules of natural justice by determining the issues on the basis of a rationale in respect of which neither party had advanced in submissions, nor been invited by the adjudicator to address.
The Court also gave important guidance regarding the circumstances in which companies which are insolvent will be permitted to enforce an adjudicator’s decision, and the availability of “ringfencing” as a form of security.
St Philips entered into a construction contract with J A Ball in the form of an amended JCT Design and Build Contract 2016 (the Contract). The works involved the conversion of a commercial property to apartments for residential use (the Works).
Prior to completion of the Works, JAB appointed administrators. This constituted an insolvency event under the Contract with the consequence that no further sum would become payable to J A Ball until after completion of the making good of defects. Accordingly, St Philips employed third parties to complete the Works.
J A Ball asserted the employment of third parties constituted an unlawful termination of the Contract and that St Philips was liable to pay to J A Ball the balance of the contract sum. St Philips denied J A Ball was entitled to further payment, and instead a sum was payable by J A Ball to St Philips as damages under the Contract.
A dispute arose between the parties, which J A Ball referred to adjudication.
Although the adjudicator determined the Contract had not been terminated, he also determined that, contrary to the expression terms of the Contract, a balancing payment was payable by St Philips to J A Ball (the Decision). This was determined by reference to a rationale which neither J A Ball nor St Philips had advanced in submissions, nor been invited by the adjudicator to address.
St Philips refused to comply with the decision on the basis that in breach of the rules of natural justice, the adjudicator had “gone off on a frolic of his own”.
J A Ball commenced adjudication enforcement proceedings with the benefit of funding in the form of a Damages-Based Agreement (DBA) provided by Pythagoras Capital Limited (Pythagoras).
St Philips defended the claim for enforcement both for the breach of natural justice set out above, and alternatively on the following bases:
- the starting point for a company in insolvent liquidation facing cross-claims or claims of set-off will generally not be entitled to enforce an adjudicator’s decision;
- the inability of J A Ball to give “notice of distribution” declaring payment of a distribution or dividend to creditors meant there could be no doubt as to J A Ball’s insolvency, and consequently, it should be treated the same as a company in insolvent liquidation and should not be entitled to enforce the Decision;
- alternatively, the enforcement of the Decision would deprive St Philips of security for its cross- claim for damages in circumstances where (1) J A Ball is in administration and pursuing the “secondary statutory objective” (i.e. to achieve a better return to creditors, rather than to be rescued as a going concern); and (2) there was no prospect of J A Ball being able to repay St Philips if St Philips was successful in any subsequent litigation in relation to the cross-claim; and
- alternatively, St Philips’ funding arrangement was champertous (meaning the claim was no longer in the control of or being pursued for the benefit of J A Ball, but rather for Pythagoras) and an abuse of process, and the claim should be dismissed.
Breach of natural justice
In keeping with established principles, the Court agreed with St Philips that the adjudicator breached the rules of natural justice by determining the issues on the basis of a rationale which neither party had advanced in submissions, nor been invited by the adjudicator to address.
Consequently, the Decision was unenforceable and the claim was dismissed.
Position of company in administration is analogous to position of company in liquidation
The judge went on to consider what the impact of J A Ball’s administration on the enforcement of the Decision would have been if there had not been a breach of the rules of natural justice. These findings are likely to be of wider interest, as they clarify some parts of what is a complex area of law.
The starting point is that a company in insolvent liquidation facing cross-claims or claims of set-off will generally not be entitled to enforce an adjudicator’s decision (Bouygues (UK) Ltd v Dahl-Jensen (UK) Ltd  B.L.R. 522) because all claims and cross-claims should be resolved in the liquidation in accordance with the Insolvency Rules 1986 (Affirmed by the Court of Appeal in John Doyle v Erith Contractors  EWCA Civ 1452), subject to certain exceptions established by the Supreme Court in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in Liquidation) Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd  UKSC 25).
An equivalent legislative provision does not apply to a company in administration unless and until the company gives a “notice of distribution”, declaring payment of a distribution or dividend to creditors.
J A Ball’s position was that because no notice of distribution had been given, the Decision was capable of enforcement.
St Philips’ position, however, was that the inability of J A Ball to give notice of distribution meant there could be no doubt as to the company’s insolvency and, consequently, it should be treated the same as a company in insolvent liquidation and should not be entitled to enforce the Decision. This position is consistent with Straw Realisations (No.1) Ltd v Shaftsbury House (Developments) Ltd  EWHC 2597, a case decided in the High Court before Bresco and John Doyle. Straw also related to a company in administration where the administrators had yet to serve a notice of distribution.
The judge agreed and confirmed that Straw Realisations is good law in relation to the enforcement of adjudication decisions by companies in administration, because “…it is consistent with the underlying principle of preferring the insolvency regime to that of adjudication where justified on the facts”. The judge noted that the principle established in Straw Realisations had to be modified according to the approach set out in Bresco and John Doyle, as follows:
- it is clear from Bresco and Doyle that even in the case of a liquidation, refusal of summary judgment is not inevitable as there may be fact specific circumstances that allow summary judgment; and
- the same must be said of an award in favour of a company which subsequently goes into administration, where again there is no hard and fast rule that an award will not be enforced in favour of a company in administration, and instead the policy of enforcing adjudication awards may have to be balanced against the insolvency regime, which affects all creditors.
This is a fact specific point and means that given the complexity of the greater proportion of corporate insolvencies, there is no hard and fast rule that can applied to all situations.
Provision of security
The judge went on to consider the adequacy of J A Ball’s proposals to provide security in accordance with the principles in Meadowside.
In support of J A Ball’s position, the administrators offered to “ringfence” any payment made by St Philips in compliance with the Decision, and Pythagoras offered to guarantee St Philips’ costs of proceedings to overturn the Decision.
St Philips’ position was J A Ball’s proposals were inadequate for various reasons, including that (1) the “ringfencing” of any payment would be futile because it would deprive St Philips of cashflow and would at the same time be unavailable for distribution to the creditors of J A Ball, and (2) the guarantee was unsatisfactory because it did not extend to the cost of litigating St Philips’ cross-claim generally.
The Court agreed with St Philips. In relation to “ringfencing”, the Court was satisfied St Philips would be able to satisfy any later judgment in favour of J A Ball and observed:
“I do not see the purpose for ordering the defendant to pay money over, only for it to be held in a ring-fenced account… the sterilisation of money in this way runs counter to the underlying philosophy of adjudication”.
In relation to the guarantee, the Court observed:
“The guarantee is limited to the extent that the defendant’s “proceedings are successful in overturning the Adjudicator’s Decision.” For that reason alone, the guarantee is inadequate… It does not give full costs protection to the defendant to the extent of the action it proposes to bring to defeat the claim based on the award”.
Had the Decision not been unenforceable due to the breach of the rules of natural justice, the Court observed that, in part as a consequence of the issues in relation the guarantee and ringfencing, he would have stayed execution for 6 months to enable St Philips to pursue its cross-claim.
The Court went on to consider whether Pythagoras’ funding arrangement was champertous and an abuse of process, and, if so, the impact on the enforcement of the Decision if there had not been a breach of the rules of natural justice.
The courts have previously determined funding provided by Pythagoras to be champertous, though be unable to conclude whether it amounted to an abuse of process (Meadowside).
St Philips’ position was the DBA was champertous and an abuse of process because the DBA did not comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (2013 Regulations) and even if successful, J A Ball would receive less than 50% of any sums paid by St Philips with the greater proportion being paid to Pythagoras (which meant the claim was no longer in the control of or being pursued for the benefit of J A Ball).
The Court agreed the DBA was champertous as a consequence of non-compliance with the 2013 Regulations because:
- the Court could not be satisfied Pythagoras would receive 50% or less of any payment recovered from St Philips (being the maximum permitted under the 2013 Regulations); and
- the DBA did not include adequate reasons to explain the basis on which Pythagoras’ percentage recovery had been set.
Whilst the Court was not persuaded the DBA amounted to an abuse of process, it expressed “reservations arising from the fact that the funder is controlling the litigation due to its connection with Circle Law and its position as agent for the administrators” arising from the fact that J A Ball’s funder and legal representatives are under common control.
The judgment confirms that, as a matter of policy, it is only in the most exceptional of circumstances that the courts will permit enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision by a company in insolvency, or accept ringfencing as an adequate form of security for any cross-claim.
Further, the circumstances in which a company in administration may be granted permission to enforce an adjudicator’s decision are limited to a situation where:
- no notice of distribution has been given and the adjudicator’s decision has finally determined the issues between the parties (as per Straw Realisations), which in practice will be unusual because it will typically only arise by way of agreement or the operation of a contract (most obviously the NEC); and / or
- there are “exceptional circumstances”, which may include where:
- the decision concerns the final net position between the parties; and
- the insolvent party seeking enforcement is able to provide security for the opposing party’s cross-claim and the costs of that cross-claim.
This has implications for companies in insolvency and insolvency practitioners seeking enforcement of adjudicator’s decisions, and may result in a return to the resolution of claims through the formal insolvency procedures designed for such purposes.
If you require assistance with issues arising from adjudication or adjudication enforcement, don’t hesitate to contact us.
+44 (0)115 976 6599
+44 (0)330 045 2384
You may be interested in...
New provisions for Higher-Risk Residential Buildings to come into force on 1 April 2023
UK and Ireland law firm Browne Jacobson joins UKREiiF 2023
Biodiversity Net Gain — Government publishes consultation response
J A Ball Limited (in Administration) v St Philips Homes (Courthaulds) Ltd
Register to join our Academy: to Register your interest in our next Academy
“A Modern Nuisance”
Government response to the consultation on the Higher-Risk Buildings Regulations
What are freeports and what benefits could they offer?
Supreme court rules on retail tenant's service charge bill
2023: Horizon scanning in construction
Biodiversity Net Gain: positive for nature and an opportunity for landowners
The UK's green agenda - the outcomes of COP27 and actions since COP26
Logistics firm fined for multiple failings leading to asbestos exposure
Logistics company Eddie Stobart has been fined £133,000, after a series of failures which took place whilst excavation work was carried out, exposing its staff to asbestos.
Former Mace Group Legal Director joins Browne Jacobson as Non-Executive Director of its Construction & Real Estate sector
Browne Jacobson has appointed Amy Chapman, the former Group Legal Director of global built environment experts Mace Group, as its first Non-Executive Director (NED) of its Construction & Real Estate sector strategy board.
Browne Jacobson advises Bromley Council on the first social housing initiative of its kind to tackle homelessness
Don't look down
An engineering company in Tyne and Wear was fined £20,000 after a worker fractured his pelvis and suffered internal injuries after falling through a petrol station forecourt canopy, whilst he was replacing the guttering.
Trigger happy when directors’ duties are the target?
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
Sequana: Supreme clarification on the duty owed to creditors
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the BTI v Sequana appeal and reviewed the existence, content and engagement of the so-called ‘creditor duty’; being the point at which the interest of creditors is said to intrude upon the decision-making of directors of companies in financial distress.
Browne Jacobson appoints its first Non-Executive to Chair to support its corporate sector strategy board
Building Safety Act 2022 Update - Secondary Legislation
Improving the performance of the NSIP planning process and supporting local authorities
IUA publishes cladding remediation clause
Sole director decisions Another perspective
In an unreported case (Re Active Wear Limited (in Administration)), the High Court has ruled that an out-of-court administration appointment, instigated by a sole director of a company with unmodified model articles, was valid notwithstanding the earlier decision of Deputy Judge Farnhill (also in the High Court) in the case Hashmi v Lorimer-Wing (also known as Re Fore Fitness Investments Holdings Ltd)  EWHC 191 (Ch) (02 February 2022).
Browne Jacobson advise CTS Group on latest geotechnical consultancy leader acquisition
Browne Jacobson’s private equity (PE) dealmakers have advised Palatine Private Equity backed CTS Group (Construction Testing Solutions Limited) on its latest acquisition of Concept Engineering Consultants Limited, a leader in geotechnical, structural and geo-environmental services for an undisclosed amount.
Rolls Royce SMR ambitions will bring Hinkley like benefits to regions
Rolls-Royce has shortlisted six locations for its first factory for small nuclear power stations. We look at the impact on regions & local businesses
RAAC planks and its impact on local authorities
Recent reports of flat roofs constructed using RAAC planks collapsing without warning prompted the SCOSS alert.
How will the Building Safety Act 2022 impact buildings completed before the Act comes into force?
How will the Building Safety Act 2022 impact on the design and construction of buildings commenced after the Act comes into force?
How will the Building Safety Act 2022 impact on the ownership and occupation of higher-risk buildings?
The Building Safety Act 2022: Navigating building liability orders
The Building Safety Act 2022 received Royal Assent on 28 April 2022 (“Act”). The government has described the reforms introduced by the Act as “the biggest changes to building safety regulation in a generation”. For once the hype is justified.
Compliance - small businesses and new regulation
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has released a report setting out the impact of new and changing regulations arising from the pandemic on small businesses across the UK.
Construction: Gold Standard Framework – seven months on
We have created a summary of the recommendations and consistent themes which we are now starting to see becoming more embedded in public sector procurement practices.
Sustainability in construction
The climate emergency has reached a point where real and substantial damage is being caused to both the planet and society. There has been a shift from planning and theorising the most effective solutions, to a phase where practical, efficient, and sustainable solutions are required at speed.
Responding to Grenfell – Slow progress is better than none
As the Grenfell Inquiry continues, how have the Phase 1 recommendations changed the fire safety and building safety landscape?
Browne Jacobson advises Charterpoint on sale of 73-bed care home site
Browne Jacobson has successfully advised Nottingham based developer Charterpoint on the sale of a 1.2 acre care home development site in Thurnby (Leicestershire) to care home operator Cinnamon.
Queen’s speech: planning reforms to be tackled via Levelling up Bill
This year’s Queen’s Speech has outlined several legislative changes and the overhauling of laws around levelling up, planning and economic crime that could affect conveyancers.
Building Safety Bill – what’s coming and how will it affect you?
In anticipation of the adoption of the Building Safety Bill, our specialist compliance and regulatory team will give an overview of the measures proposed in the Bill.
Building Safety Bill receives Royal Assent
The new regime introduced by the Act will take shape over the next 18 months, but those who design, build or manage high rise buildings are being urged to get ready for the changes to be introduced through the act.
Update: building safety repairs pledge signed by over 35 major housing developers
On 14 February 2022, Secretary of State of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Michael Gove, announced proposals designed to pressure building developers and materials manufacturers to fund the remediation of unsafe properties.
Building Safety Bill amendments
In March the government proposed a number of changes to the Building Safety Bill. The new amendments propose additional protection for leaseholders to prevent them from being charged for cladding work if they own up to three properties.