McLaren Construction (London) Ltd v Greyhound Investing Corporation

Summary judgment may enforce an adjudicator’s decision even where the defendant takes no part in the enforcement proceedings, provided service and jurisdiction are established. A procedural defect in service may be waived under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 3.10 where it causes no conceivable doubt or prejudice. An adjudicator’s additional reasoning or argument does not create a separate dispute where the essential dispute remains the parties’ entitlement to payment. Notices served outside the contractual time limit are defective and cannot be relied upon to resist payment.

The claimant sought summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision requiring the defendant to pay approximately £858,000 under a building contract. The defendant, a BVI company, had participated fully in the adjudication but did not engage with the enforcement claim or attend the hearing.

The court considered service out of the jurisdiction, two alleged defects in the service documents, the scope of the adjudication, and whether the defendant could rely on late liquidated damages and pay less notices. The central issue was whether the adjudicator’s decision should be enforced.

1. Service. The defendant had been properly served at its registered office in the BVI, in accordance with the order permitting service out of the jurisdiction. Additional email service on the directors provided further notice. The omission of the N1D guidance form caused no doubt or prejudice and any requirement to serve it was waived under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 3.10. The incorrect period stated in the response pack also caused no prejudice because the relevant court orders had been served.
2. Adjudication jurisdiction. The adjudicator was correct to treat the matter as one dispute: whether the claimant was entitled to payment under the final valuation and whether the defendant could rely on its notices. The claimant’s further argument that one liquidated damages notice had not been served was an additional argument, not a separate dispute. The analogous jurisdiction objection likewise did not alter the dispute.
3. Merits. The liquidated damages and pay less notices were required to be served by 5 April. They were received on 8 April and were therefore out of time and defective. The adjudicator had no option but to decide in favour of the claimant after considering the valuation.
4. Disposition. Summary judgment was entered for the claimant in the sum of £1,062,565.06, including interest to the stated date. The court also ordered payment of £66,000 in costs.

Not an appeal. The judgment was a first-instance decision on an application for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision.