Amey LG Ltd v Amey Birmingham Highways Ltd

Adjudication-related proceedings do not automatically qualify for the expedited procedure used for adjudication enforcement. A party must not issue overlapping proceedings, seek abridged directions without proper notice, or circumvent ordinary procedural safeguards. The court may strike out proceedings brought as an abuse of process, but striking out a valid claim is a last resort. Where the abuse can be addressed proportionately, the court should consider less drastic measures, including a stay to prevent parallel proceedings.

Amey LG Ltd brought Part 8 proceedings against Amey Birmingham Highways Ltd concerning two adjudication decisions. At the time, related Part 20 proceedings between the parties concerning the same contract and overlapping issues were subject to a consensual stay. Amey LG issued the new proceedings without promptly serving them or informing Amey Birmingham, while seeking expedited directions as though the claim were adjudication enforcement. The issue was whether the new proceedings should be struck out as an abuse of process, having regard to the procedural conduct and the existing proceedings.

1. Adjudication procedure. Adjudication enforcement has its own procedure under CPR Part 7. The consensual approach identified in Hutton Construction Ltd v Wilson Properties (London) [2017] EWHC 517 (TCC) is to be followed. A claim concerning an adjudication, or contractual adjudication provisions, is not thereby an enforcement claim qualifying automatically for abridged time limits or expedited directions.
2. Abuse of process. The court must not be misled into allowing a party to circumvent the ordinary time limits. CPR 3.4(2)(b) permits strike-out where proceedings are an abuse of process or are likely to obstruct the fair disposal of proceedings.
3. Multiplicity of proceedings. Under section 49.2 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the court should, so far as possible, determine all matters in dispute completely and finally and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. That principle applies even in long-term projects where successive adjudications and proceedings may arise. Parties cannot issue overlapping proceedings concerning the same contract and project merely to obtain a perceived tactical advantage.
4. Relief. The conduct was contrary to the applicable procedural principles, particularly because the existing proceedings were ignored and the defendant was not given proper notice. Nevertheless, striking out the Part 8 claim would be disproportionate. The court therefore imposed a non-consensual stay on the existing Part 20 proceedings, which could not be lifted without a further court order, and allowed the Part 8 claim to continue. Costs were to reflect the court’s criticism of the claimant’s conduct.