Lobo v Corich & Anor

Service of adjudication documents under the Scheme incorporated into a construction contract does not require proof that the recipient actually read or became aware of them. Service by an effective means, including delivery to the contractual address or the recipient’s last known principal residence, is sufficient. For court proceedings against an individual, CPR 6.9 requires service at the usual or last known residence. A claimant need not seek substituted service where there is no reason to doubt that the address used remains appropriate. A party cannot rely on deliberate or seriously careless failure to inspect correspondence to establish procedural unfairness or natural justice grounds for setting aside an adjudication decision, judgment or charging order.

The proceedings concerned building works undertaken under a written JCT contract. Following termination, an account was issued and an adjudicator ordered Mr Corich to pay sums due to Mr Lobo. Mr Corich did not participate in the adjudication or the enforcement proceedings. Jefford J subsequently entered summary judgment, and Coulson J made an interim charging order over 25 Gunter Grove.

Mr Corich later applied to set aside the adjudication decision, the summary judgment and the charging order, alleging inadequate notice, procedural unfairness and breach of natural justice. The central issues were whether the adjudication and court proceedings had been duly served and whether the resulting decisions should be set aside.

1. Applications dismissed. The court found in favour of Mr Lobo on both applications. The adjudication decision, Jefford J’s summary judgment and Coulson J’s interim charging order were not set aside.
2. Under s. 115(3) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, service under the Scheme is by any effective means. Actual receipt or actual knowledge is not required. Delivery to the contractual address, or to an effective address for service, is sufficient.
3. The adjudication notice and referral notice were effectively served. The contractual address remained 7 Gunter Grove because Mr Corich had not notified a replacement address in accordance with the contract. Service was also made at 25 Gunter Grove and by email to accounts which Mr Corich continued to use.
4. For the court proceedings, 25 Gunter Grove was Mr Corich’s usual or last known place of residence within CPR 6.9. The claimant had no reason to believe that it was no longer an appropriate address. An application for substituted service was therefore unnecessary.
5. The evidence showed that the relevant documents and emails were available to Mr Corich, and that his failure to inspect them resulted from a conscious decision or, at minimum, extraordinary carelessness. That conduct did not establish natural injustice or procedural unfairness. The claimant was under no duty to contact him separately to confirm his awareness of the proceedings.