A late October 2010 case Straw Realisations v Shaftsbury House illustrates the courts’ approach to technical and insolvency-based challenges regarding enforcement of adjudicators’ awards. Given the current spate of contractor insolvencies and popularity of adjudication, any trust facing an adverse adjudicator's decision in favour of its contractor should not pay without due consideration.

A late-October 2010 case on adjudication illustrates the courts' approach to technical and insolvency-based challenges regarding enforcement of adjudicators' awards.

Haymills (Contractors) Ltd went into administration in August 2009 having already won one adjudication against its employer, Shaftsbury, and having just commenced another, which it subsequently also won. Given Haymills' administration, Shaftsbury refused to pay the amounts awarded in either adjudication, relying on numerous heads to resist payment:  

The cuts revealed in the Comprehensive Spending Review have not been quite as bad as the construction industry had apparently been expecting (£3.5 billion not as bad). Nevertheless there have still been billions of pounds shaved off various departmental budgets which will affect the construction industry. Where public spending has in the past been a reliable source of income, some companies are inevitably now going to feel the effect of the cuts.

On 7 September 2010 "property and environmental services giant" Connaught, which had large contracts with many local authorities for maintenance of social housing, went into administration. In the wave of publicity which followed, the administrator quickly announced that it had "sold" the "majority of the ongoing contracts and their related assets" to Lovell, a subsidiary of Morgan Sindall. Since then, announcements have been few and far between.

The demise of Connaught's social housing maintenance business will have left a great deal of its local authority clients wondering what happens next when you need services to be undertaken and cannot afford to wait for the contractor's administration to pan out. Such clients need to be aware of what they can do in this situation under the contract. First, do some homework: who else is there in the marketplace? Is there a potential buyer of the insolvent firm's business and will any such purchase include the contract that it has with you?

Christmas came early for landlords last year when the High Court handed down its decision in this case. The court had to consider the circumstances in which a tenant's administrators are obliged to pay rent as an expense of the administration, thereby giving the landlord priority over other unsecured creditors.

In William Hare Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd, the judgment of which can be accessed here, the consequences of an anachronistic piece of contract drafting cost the losing party over £1 million. The issue here was whether or not the contractor under a building sub-contract could successfully pass the risk of the employer’s insolvency onto its sub-contractor by means of what is commonly known as a “pay when paid” clause.

An employment appeal tribunal has ruled that TUPE does not apply to all sales by administrators. On this view, whether TUPE applies will depend on the objectives of the administrator when appointed. In this case it was clear from the outset that continuing to trade was not viable and an immediate sale of the company’s assets was required to secure the best outcome for creditors. That put the administration in the category of “terminal” insolvency proceedings, for which a complete exemption from TUPE applies.

The company voluntary arrangement (CVA) is a relatively obscure insolvency procedure whose use has traditionally been overshadowed by administration. A CVA is essentially a contract between a company and its unsecured creditors which sets out the terms on which the company can continue trading. Implementation of a CVA requires the approval of 75 per cent of creditors by value, who vote on the proposal.

There are two main reasons why CVAs are likely to be used more widely in the future:

MCGRATH AND ANOTHER v RIDDELL, House of Lords, 9 April 2008

The liquidators of the HIH group of Australian insurance companies appealed against the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal that certain assets of the HIH group, mostly reinsurance claims on policies taken out in the London market, should not be remitted to Australia. The courts instead ordered that the assets should remain in England and be distributed to creditors in accordance with English insolvency laws.