Hillview Industrial Developments (UK) Ltd v Botes Building Ltd

Adjudication awards in construction disputes are ordinarily enforceable immediately, even where the losing party has a separate claim which may later require repayment. A pending or anticipated claim does not ordinarily justify set-off, adjournment or a stay. The statutory purpose is to secure speedy interim payment pending final determination. A stay may be granted only where withholding immediate enforcement is necessary to prevent manifest injustice, such as a serious risk that payment could not be recovered promptly if the paying party later succeeded.

Hillview applied for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s award of £292,650 against Botes. Botes accepted that the adjudicator’s decision was valid and that it had no substantive defence, but argued that enforcement should be delayed because it had issued a separate claim concerning the final account and final statement.

Botes sought a trial, an adjournment so that both applications could be heard together, set-off, or a short stay. The central issue was whether those circumstances justified departing from the ordinary rule that an adjudicator’s award must be implemented promptly.

1. Summary judgment. The court gave judgment for Hillview for £292,650 plus statutory interest. Botes had conceded that it had no defence to enforcement. The adjudicator’s decision was therefore enforceable immediately and, under the contract, without delay.
2. Statutory purpose. The Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 provides a speedy mechanism for resolving construction disputes on an interim basis. Section 108(3) requires the adjudicator’s decision to remain binding until final determination by legal proceedings, arbitration or agreement. The contractual adjudication procedure reinforced that obligation.
3. Set-off and related proceedings. A party cannot ordinarily withhold payment of an adjudicator’s award because it expects to recover money in a later adjudication or separate proceedings. The court adopted and applied the approach in Interserve Industrial Services Ltd v Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd [2006] EWHC (TCC) 741. Botes’ untried claim for payment under the final statement could not be set off against the award.
4. Trial or adjournment. There was no compelling reason to dispose of the enforcement claim at trial or to adjourn it until Botes’ application was heard. Allowing a claim to proceed to trial when the defendant admitted having no defence would be an abuse of process.
5. Stay. The jurisdiction to stay enforcement is limited to cases involving a risk of manifest injustice. A serious risk that the receiving party would be unable to repay promptly if the later claim succeeded might justify a short stay or protective order. No such risk was advanced here. Requiring payment first and repayment later, if necessary, was consistent with the legislation.