In August 2018, in Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (In Liquidation) 1 Mr Justice Fraser had the opportunity in the context of CPR Part 8 proceedings to clarify whether or not a liquidator can pursue a claim in adjudication arising out of a construction contract.

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 decision in Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (In Liquidation) [2018] (TCC) has held that a company in liquidation cannot refer a dispute to adjudication when that dispute includes (whether in whole or in part) determination of any claim for further sums said to be due to the referring party from the responding party. 

Background

The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has delivered a significant judgment in Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd v Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in liquidation) [2018] EWHC 2043 (TCC) where the company seeking to refer a dispute to adjudication was in liquidation. The substance of the dispute related to the contractor's claim for payment allegedly due for work completed, and damages for loss of profits.

The contract and the facts

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.

A recent TCC decision has ruled that adjudication proceedings cannot be brought by companies in liquidation in relation to financial claims under a construction contract. The decision will have considerable ramifications for the practical management of liquidations for companies with exposure to construction contracts. The decision would appear to run contrary to current liquidator practice, both as to the use of adjudication proceedings in liquidations and as to the assignment of claims to third parties, but essentially only confirms the mandatory nature of insolvency set-off.

From time to time the statutory rights available to parties to construction contracts appears to come into conflict with other sets of provisions that also claim to govern the same areas of dispute. Perhaps the best known such clash, between adjudication and the effect of insolvency, was that explored in the Scottish case of Melville Dundas Limited (in Receivership) v George Wimpey UK Limited[1] in 2007.

In Endersby and Coote v Astrosoccer 4 U Ltd the High Court made a retrospective Administration order over a company that was subject to a winding-up petition to "cure" an invalid directors' out-of-court appointment of Administrators.

A recent TCC decision has concluded that the contractor insolvency provisions of the JCT form continue to apply after a termination by the contractor for repudiation. This conclusion may give rise to surprising results and potentially allow an employer to claim from the contractor additional amounts incurred in completing the works with a third party even after termination for the employer’s own default and/or repudiation.

Two recently published decisions in the TCC considered the enforceability of an Adjudicator's decision and insolvency issues

Typically, the TCC has sought to enforce an Adjudicator's decision and the avenues for the losing party to challenge the award is narrow. The case law regarding what may and may not give rise to a successful challenge is well known and outside the scope of this note.