Harris Calnan Construction Co. Ltd v Ridgewood (Kensington) Ltd

A party challenging an adjudicator’s jurisdiction must either agree to be bound by the adjudicator’s decision on jurisdiction or reserve the right to challenge it later. The court determines that question from the parties’ conduct and communications. A letter of intent may constitute a contract in writing where the parties, scope, price, contractual terms and duration are sufficiently agreed, even though formal documentation remains outstanding. Service outside the jurisdiction requires no permission where the conditions in CPR 6.19(1)(b) and Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 are met. Failure to state the ground for service is an irregularity rather than a nullity where no prejudice is caused. Unmeritorious resistance to enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision may justify indemnity costs.

The claimant sought summary judgment for £102,274.85 arising from an adjudicator’s decision. The defendant, a Jersey company, was absent and unrepresented but raised objections concerning the adjudicator’s jurisdiction, service outside the jurisdiction and the omission from the claim form of the ground relied upon for such service.

The court considered whether the parties had agreed to be bound by the adjudicator’s jurisdictional ruling, whether the underlying letter of intent was a contract in writing, whether service outside the jurisdiction required permission, and whether the defective claim form caused invalid service or prejudice.

1. Jurisdictional challenge. The adjudicator had considered and rejected the submission that there was no contract in writing. A party may accept that the adjudicator’s jurisdictional decision will be binding, or may reserve the right to challenge jurisdiction later. The defendant had not reserved its position and was therefore bound by the adjudicator’s conclusion.
2. Contract in writing. In any event, the adjudicator was almost certainly right. The letter of intent identified the parties, the workscope through the tender documents, the lump sum, the JCT 2005 contractual terms, retention, liquidated damages and contract period. The absence of more formal documentation did not prevent a binding contract where nothing material remained for agreement. The authorities on letters of intent turned on their facts.
3. Service outside the jurisdiction. Under CPR 6.19(1)(b), permission was unnecessary where the court had power to determine the claim under the Judgments Regulation and the defendant was party to an agreement conferring jurisdiction within Article 23. The claimant was domiciled in the United Kingdom, the contract was evidenced in writing, and Article 9 of the JCT form conferred jurisdiction on the court. Service was therefore valid without permission.
4. Omission from claim form. The failure to state the ground for service was an irregularity. It did not invalidate service because the defendant had suffered no prejudice and had addressed the claim in correspondence.
5. Disposition and costs. The objections failed. Summary judgment was entered for £102,274.85, payable by 4.00 p.m. on 29 November 2007. The defendant was ordered to pay £7,758 in indemnity costs because it had pursued unmeritorious objections and failed to pay the adjudicated sum.