WRB (N.I.) Limited v Henry Construction Projects Limited

Construction adjudication decisions are ordinarily enforced promptly because they provide temporary finality. A stay of execution may be justified where the successful party will probably be unable to repay the judgment sum, but the court must weigh that risk against the adjudication regime’s purpose.

Financial weakness will generally not justify a stay where it was substantially unchanged when the contract was made, or where the defendant chose to contract with a dormant or financially uncertain company. A possible cross-claim is not a defence to enforcement.

WRB sought summary judgment enforcing an adjudicator’s decision requiring Henry Construction to pay a balance under a construction subcontract and reimburse the adjudicator’s fees. Henry Construction conceded enforcement in principle but disputed the amount and sought a stay of execution.

WRB was dormant and disputed being the contractual subcontractor, but an earlier adjudication had resolved that issue against Henry Construction. Henry Construction relied on its alleged inability to recover the judgment sum if it later succeeded on substantial cross-claims.

1. Summary judgment was entered for £139,799.20, comprising the adjudicated sum, further interest and adjudicator’s fees and expenses. VAT on the subcontract sum was not established by evidence. The additional adjudicator-related liability was excluded because it was not part of the summary judgment application and the required notice had not been given.
2. Under Rule 83.7(4)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, a stay requires special circumstances making enforcement inexpedient. The principles in Wimbledon Construction Company 2000 Ltd v Vago [2005] EWHC 1086 (TCC) were applied. Adjudication provides temporary finality, so the successful party should not generally be kept out of its money.
3. A probable inability to repay may justify a stay, but not usually where the claimant’s financial position was substantially unchanged when the contract was made, or where the defendant assumed the commercial risk of contracting with a dormant company. A possible cross-claim is no defence to enforcement.
4. The stay application was dismissed.