Willow Corp SARL v MTD Contractors Ltd

Part 7 adjudication-enforcement proceedings should ordinarily be dealt with promptly, even where related Part 8 proceedings concern the same adjudication or contractual issues. The usual course is for the parties to coordinate the claims so that all issues can be determined efficiently in one action or hearing. An adjournment to an indeterminate date is inappropriate where it would delay enforcement. In exceptional circumstances, the court may separate the proceedings, allowing the enforcement application to proceed while adjourning the related Part 8 claim until a linked judgment is available. Such an order is fact-specific and does not undermine the general approach stated in the TCC Guide and Hutton Construction Ltd v Wilson Properties (London) Ltd [2017] EWHC 517 (TCC).

MTD obtained an adjudicator’s decision potentially entitling it to approximately £862,000. Willow commenced Part 8 proceedings challenging contractual issues arising from that decision, and MTD commenced Part 7 enforcement proceedings. The parties initially agreed directions for the two proceedings to be heard together on 13 May 2019.

Willow later sought to move the hearing because related Part 8 and Part 7 proceedings were awaiting judgment before Pepperall J. The court had to decide whether to adjourn both proceedings, hear both despite the asserted linkage, or proceed with enforcement while postponing the Part 8 claim.

1. The court ordered that MTD’s Part 7 enforcement hearing proceed on 13 May 2019. Willow’s related Part 8 proceedings were adjourned and directed to be relisted after judgment was available in the linked proceedings before Pepperall J.

2. Part 7 and Part 8 proceedings concerning the same adjudicator’s decision should ordinarily be dealt with together. This is more efficient and consistent with the prompt enforcement of adjudicators’ decisions. The approach in the TCC Guide, as explained and superseded by the guidance in Hutton Construction Ltd v Wilson Properties (London) Ltd [2017] EWHC 517 (TCC), requires sensible coordination between the parties.

3. The court rejected an adjournment generally to an uncertain future date. That would deprive MTD of a prompt determination of whether its adjudicator’s decision was enforceable and would conflict with the statutory and procedural policy favouring speedy adjudication enforcement.

4. The court also considered it unsatisfactory to hear the Part 8 claim while disregarding the asserted contractual linkage with the pending judgment. In the unusual circumstances, separating the proceedings was the least unsatisfactory course. The order was specific to the circumstances and was not intended to have wide application or to undermine the ordinary rule that related Part 7 and Part 8 proceedings should be heard together.