[2019] EWCA Civ 27

Background

This was a conjoined appeal alongside Bresco v Lonsdale. In this case, Cannon and Primus had already participated in an adjudication, with the decision of the adjudicator favouring Primus. Primus would later enter into a Company Voluntary Arrangement.

The CVA was made on the basis that, although Primus was insolvent at the time, it would be able to satisfy its creditors if it were able to recover from Cannon and other third parties through litigation and adjudication. This was preferable to liquidation.

[2019] EWCA Civ 27

The Cannon case was heard at the same time as the Bresco appeal, although if searching for it, the case will be found under the Bresco name and reference. Here, there was a lengthy procedural history culminating in Cannon resisting summary judgment of an adjudication decision on the basis that Primus might not be able to repay the sums, because Primus was in a CVA. The Judge at first instance said:

Back in August, we wrote a blog about adjudication and liquidation, following the judgment in the TCC case of Michael J. Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in Liquidation) [2018] EWHC 2043 (TCC) (Lonsdale).

In my May 2018 article ‘Insolvency calls time on pursuing claims’, I looked at how various moratoria apply to stop claims when a party enters into certain insolvency processes. I offered a taster when I said that adjudicator’s awards were a strange species because they are not final and binding, that this complicates their enforcement, and that I would look at the complex interaction between insolvency and the enforcement of adjudicator's awards soon.

Unlawful Means Conspiracy

Obtaining a favourable arbitration award often proves to be only half of the battle. Facing obstructive counterparties refusing to honour awards, often based in jurisdictions where enforcement is slow, difficult and uncertain, is a source of regular frustration to those pursuing claims in arbitration. That is why anyone involved in international trade should be familiar with the variety of measures available to enforce their awards.

The liquidation of developers, contractors and sub-contractors are a regular occurrence in both large and small scale construction projects, with the insolvent company often left with claims against other firms involved in the development. The right to adjudicate and then make use of the summary judgment route to enforce the adjudicator’s decision has long been the most powerful tool at the disposal of the creditor company.

A recent TCC decision highlights the dangers of withholding payment against contractors with a view to pushing them into insolvency. The court allowed the recovery of insolvency professional fees as well as a substantial sum reflecting a reduced settlement reached with a third party on a separate project. The court’s decision has ramifications for any party seeking to withhold large payments under a construction contract against a party who is likely to suffer serious cash-flow pressure as a result.

It is generally the case (though not always!) that courts are reluctant to enforce monetary award adjudication decisions in favour of companies in liquidation (CILs). This is because of the uncertainty surrounding the CIL’s ability to repay those sums should it later transpire it was not entitled to the award.