Andrew Wallace Ltd v Artisan Regeneration Ltd & Anor

On an application to enforce an adjudicator’s decision, summary judgment may be given where the proposed defence has no real prospect of success. The court must avoid conducting a mini-trial, but allegations of fraud or forgery require cogent evidence. A civil court should not determine alleged criminal liability under tax or business-names legislation. A party which has accepted that there is a contract in writing, participated in adjudication and expressly accepted the adjudicator’s jurisdiction cannot ordinarily establish, after the event, that disputed contractual terms deprived the adjudicator of jurisdiction.

The claimant sought summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision awarding £128,845.89. The defendants contended that the contract was with Mr Wallace personally rather than the claimant company, that the written agreement had been altered or fabricated, and that alleged breaches of tax and business-names legislation affected enforceability and jurisdiction.

The court considered the documentary evidence, the parties’ conduct, the defendants’ participation in two adjudications and their express agreement to the adjudicator’s jurisdiction. The central questions were whether the defendants had a real prospect of defending the enforcement claim and whether the alleged disputes concerning the contract and documents deprived the adjudicator of jurisdiction.

1. Summary judgment. The defendants had no real prospect of succeeding in their defence. The court could reach that conclusion on the available evidence without conducting a mini-trial. Judgment was therefore entered for the claimant for £128,845.89, including interest, with summarily assessed costs.
2. Contracting party. Although invoices issued in Mr Wallace’s name potentially supported the defendants’ case, the unchallenged Schedule 1, correspondence, payments into the claimant company’s account and the defendants’ previous conduct supported the conclusion that the company was the contracting party. The defendants’ late reliance on the contrary case was unsupported by a satisfactory explanation.
3. Fraud and forgery. The court approached the untested allegations with caution. Fraud and forgery are serious allegations and require cogent evidence. The defendants’ evidence did not give them a real prospect of establishing fabrication or fraud, nor did the alleged credibility issues show that enforcement would assist a fraud.
4. Adjudicator’s jurisdiction. The defendants had throughout accepted that there was a contract in writing, had acquiesced in the adjudication and had expressly agreed its scope and the adjudicator’s jurisdiction. The fact that contractual terms were disputed after the event did not prevent there being a contract in writing for the purposes of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. The jurisdiction challenge therefore had no real prospect of success.
5. Alleged statutory offences. The court declined to express a view on alleged liability under section 67 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 or section 4(6) of the Business Names Act 1985. Those matters were for the appropriate authorities and, if necessary, a criminal trial. They did not justify refusing enforcement.