Gipping Construction Ltd v Eaves Ltd

In adjudication-enforcement proceedings, an adjudicator is not required to conduct a site inspection. The question is whether, exercising discretion in the context of expedited adjudication, the adjudicator honestly considered that the available evidence was sufficient and whether an inspection was essential to a fair decision.

The normal period for payment of a judgment sum is 14 days. A party seeking more time must provide proper evidence. Mere inability to pay will usually be insufficient. Where there is no real defence to enforcement, indemnity costs may be appropriate, but the defendant bears the burden of showing that elements of the bill are unreasonable.

Gipping Construction Limited sought summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision awarding it sums due under a JCT 1998 Prime Cost Contract for the construction of two bungalows.

Eaves Limited accepted that judgment should be entered for the adjudicated sums, but raised a possible breach of natural justice because the adjudicator had not inspected the site. Eaves also sought more time to pay and challenged the claimant’s costs. The court therefore considered the fairness of the adjudication process, the appropriate payment period, and the basis and amount of costs.

1. Summary judgment. Judgment was entered for Gipping for the sums awarded by the adjudicator, with continuing interest. The ordinary period for payment was 14 days.
2. Natural justice and site inspection. Adjudication is a form of expedited rough justice. There is no general obligation on an adjudicator to inspect the site. Whether to inspect is a matter of discretion. The adjudicator had considered the parties’ evidence and arguments and had sufficient material to determine whether the alleged defects arose from design or workmanship. It had not been established that an inspection was essential. The absence of a site visit therefore did not breach natural justice.
3. Extension of time for payment. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 40.11, payment is normally due within 14 days unless the court orders otherwise. An application for a longer period should be supported by proper evidence. Parties should first discuss payment arrangements. Mere inability to pay will usually not justify an extension. Permission was given to apply within the 14-day period, supported by written evidence.
4. Costs. Indemnity costs were potentially justified because there was no real defence to enforcement, but the defendant bore the burden of showing that the bill was unreasonable. The claimant’s delayed service and excessive time spent on documents justified reducing the costs to £3,400.

First-instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.