Coventry Scaffolding Company (London) Ltd v Lancsville Construction Ltd

Adjudicators’ decisions will ordinarily be enforced summarily where they appear effective and enforceable and no viable jurisdictional or natural justice challenge is advanced. Where a defendant has failed to acknowledge service within an abridged period and is plainly not participating, a claimant should consider applying for judgment in default. This may save costs, court time and listing resources. If a hearing has already been fixed, a claimant may also apply on notice to bring it forward where the defendant is unlikely to participate. Any judgment in default remains subject to the defendant’s procedural rights to apply for it to be set aside.

The claimant subcontractor obtained two adjudication decisions against the defendant main contractor concerning payment for scaffolding works. The first decision determined the value of an interim application and ordered payment of half the adjudicator’s fees. The second required payment of principal sums, interest and costs. The defendant honoured neither decision.

The claimant issued proceedings and applied for summary judgment. Directions required service of the claim documentation and supporting evidence, and abridged the period for filing an acknowledgment of service to five days. The claimant duly served the documents at the defendant’s registered office. The defendant filed no acknowledgment of service, evidence or submissions and did not attend the hearing. The issues were whether the adjudication decisions should be enforced and what procedural course was appropriate where a defendant did not participate.

1. Enforcement. The two adjudication decisions appeared effective and enforceable. No evidence or substantive challenge had been advanced. The usual grounds for resisting enforcement would be lack of jurisdiction or failure to comply with natural justice, but there was no apparent basis for either challenge. Judgment was therefore entered for the claimant in the sums due under the decisions.
2. Judgment in default. Where service of the claim form and documents required by the court’s order has occurred, abridgment of the acknowledgment-of-service period does not prevent the claimant from obtaining judgment in default once that period has expired. There is no procedural reason to require a summary judgment hearing where the defendant has not acknowledged service and is not participating.
3. Practical case-management guidance. The Technology and Construction Court encouraged claimants to apply administratively for judgment in default where an acknowledgment of service is not filed within the abridged period. This can reduce the claimant’s costs and release court time for other matters. A defendant retains any available right to apply to set aside the default judgment.
4. Where it is clear that a defendant is unlikely to participate in a listed hearing, the claimant may apply on notice to bring the hearing forward. That course may reduce the hearing time and costs and enable judgment to be obtained sooner.

The court’s guidance was directed generally to enforcement proceedings and was not criticism of the claimant’s solicitors, who had followed a previously accepted practice.