Hoyle v BAK Building (Contracts) Ltd, Court of Appeal - Technology and Construction Court, August 23, 2018, [2018] EWHC 2802 (TCC)

Resolution Date:August 23, 2018
Issuing Organization:Technology and Construction Court
Actores:Hoyle v BAK Building (Contracts) Ltd
 
FREE EXCERPT

Epiq Europe Ltd, 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY

Tel No: 020 7404 1400 | www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/

WordWave International trading as DTI

Case No: HT-2018-000182

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 2802 (TCC)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS

TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT

The Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2A 2LL

Date: Thursday, 23 August 2018

BEFORE:

MRS JUSTICE JEFFORD, QC

----------------------

BETWEEN:

CHARLES DAVID HOYLE

Claimant

- and -

B.A.K. BUILDING (CONTRACTS) LTD

Defendant

----------------------

Digital Transcription by Epiq Europe Ltd,

8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2DY

Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424

Web: www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/ Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk

(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

----------------------

MR M HIRST (instructed by Napthens LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimant

The Defendant was not represented and did not appear.

----------------------

JUDGMENT (As Approved)

  1. MRS JUSTICE JEFFORD: This is an application by the claimant, Mr Charles David Hoyle, against a construction company B.A.K. Building (Contracts) Ltd (``BAK'') for summary judgment, summary judgment being sought in order to enforce the decision of an adjudicator, Mr Conway, which was given on 22 February 2018. The claimant commenced proceedings and, in the normal way, directions were given by Mr Justice Fraser which abridged time for various activities to be undertaken so that the matter could come before the court for the enforcement of the adjudicator's decision. Those directions included the abridgement of time for acknowledgement of service to four working days; that further evidence should be filed and served by the defendant by 30 July, that any evidence in response by the claimant should be filed by 10 August; that there should be an oral hearing today at 10.30 am and that the claimant should file and serve a paginated bundle comprising all relevant documents, statements, pleadings, etc, by 12.00pm on 20 August 2018.

  2. The dispute itself, which was referred to adjudication, arises out of a project at Langdale Gardens and Clifton Court which are in Blackpool. Mr Hoyle undertook carpentry work for BAK, the defendant, pursuant to an oral agreement entered into May 2017. There is no dispute between the parties that there was such an oral agreement. His claim in the adjudication was for a relatively small amount and he was awarded, by the adjudicator's decision, the sum of £3,850.96. The adjudicator also made provision for the payment of interest and the payment of his fees and expenses in the sum of £3,805.50. BAK failed to pay those amounts and, as I have already said, Mr Hoyle, in due course, commenced proceedings to enforce the adjudicator's decision.

  3. Before I turn to the substance of the application, I should say that the defendants has sought to have today's hearing adjourned. It appears that on 16 August last Thursday the defendant wrote to the court asking for an adjournment. It is not at all clear to me whether that letter has been received by the court but, in any event, it had not before yesterday come to the attention of any judge. In that letter, the defendant company said that the person who was dealing with this matter had been away when the claim was received. The office had, therefore, filed the acknowledgement of service believing that this would give 28 days for the defence as ``The top document was the normal claim form'', The letter contuined:

    Please note that they did not realise that there was a different timetable as they are not legally trained. We were not aware of the hearing date otherwise instructions would have been left as...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL