Guides & Advice

Collecting monies via adjudication and enforcement proceedings on behalf of insolvent construction companies

Published: 28th September 2020
Area: Real Estate & Planning
In the landmark case of Bresco the courts confirmed that a liquidator of an insolvent company has a right to refer a dispute to adjudication at any time (See our previous blog).

The courts have now provided some welcome guidance for liquidators on how an insolvent construction company can enforce a favourable adjudicator’s decision.

The background

The background facts to the case of John Doyle Construction v Erith Contractors are, in many respects, irrelevant.  What’s important to note is that JDC is an insolvent sub-contractor who has been awarded the sum of £1.2m in an adjudicator’s decision.

JDC sought to enforce the adjudicator’s decision seeking an order from the court for Erith (the main-contractor) to make payment. Erith, resisted this and so the matter came before the specialist construction court.

In reaching its conclusions, the court helpfully set out five principles which should be considered where an insolvent party (such as JDC) seeks enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision:

1. Does the dispute referred to adjudication relate to the whole of the parties’ financial dealings under a construction contract or only a discrete element of it?

2. Are there any dealings between the parties that are outside of the scope of the construction contract to which the adjudicator’s decision relates?

3. Are there any other defences available to the defendant (i.e. the responding party in the adjudication) which were not deployed and used in the adjudication?

4. What security is the IP prepared to offer?

5. Is there a risk that the summary enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision will deprive the paying party (i.e. the responding party in the adjudication) security for its cross-claim?

Applying these principles, the court found in favour of the Erith and, on this occasion, refused to enforce the adjudicator’s decision. The court decided that the key issue was that JDC had offered inadequate security. . For instance:

  • the IPs had not offered to ring-fence the monies of £1.2m that Erith would have to pay;
  • there was no letter of credit obtained from a funder (only a letter of intent to apply for credit on the receipt of funds – clearly not one and the same thing); and
  • the ATE insurance policy (in respect of Erith’s costs of bringing its cross-claims) contained a number of exclusion terms and so was not considered to be adequate security.

In light of these factors, the court decided that there was a real risk that the enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision would deprive Erith of security for its cross-claims and would not put Erith in the position that it would have been had JDC been solvent.

Why is this case important?

It was underlined in the Bresco case that issues surrounding the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision should properly be dealt with at the enforcement stage and should not hinder the commencement of an adjudication.

This recent case helpfully goes a step further than Bresco and considers the circumstances in which an adjudicator’s decision in favour of an insolvent party may be enforced and what security may be required.

The five principles provided by the court shine a light on the ‘grey area’ of enforcement that was not fully addressed in the decision in Bresco. It provides useful guidance as to what additional steps an insolvent party will have to take before a favourable adjudicator’s decision will be enforced by the courts.

What does this mean for IPs?

This guidance should enable IPs and their legal advisors to better assess the merits of commencing an adjudication on behalf of an insolvent company and the likelihood of recovering monies which can be distributed to the creditors. It helpfully outlines the type and extent of security that IPs will need to be prepared to offer.

This decision reinforces the fact that adjudication remains a useful tool in the armoury available to IPs – especially where the adjudication deals with all of the outstanding matters between the parties (and not simply discrete smaller disputes) and sufficient security can be offered.

A brief side point; the court criticised the time in which it took for the adjudication and the subsequent enforcement proceedings to be commenced (some eight years following the initial insolvency of JDC!). It is key that IPs do not delay in commencing adjudications and any subsequent enforcement proceedings to collect in the monies awarded by an adjudicator.

Ahead of starting an adjudication, it’s important to get specialist advice from experts who understand every step of the process. The team has developed a fixed fee consultation enabling IPs to investigate ways to recover debts owed to insolvent construction companies. For further information, contact Kate Onions or Laura Taylor.

How can we help?

Our expert lawyers are ready to help you with a wide range of legal services, use the search below or call us on: 0330 024 0333

SHMA® ON DEMAND

Listen to our SHMA® ON DEMAND content covering a broad range of topics to help support you and your business.

Standard Method – the implications for plan-making and development opportunities across the East Midlands

4 Mar

David Pendle, Associate Director | Andrew Gore, Partner
Standard Method – the implications for plan-making and development opportunities across the East Midlands

This webinar will focus on what on the implications are for plan-making across the […]

Agriculture: Brexit and the impacts on farmers and land owners

25 Feb

Peter Snodgrass, Partner & Head of Agriculture
Agriculture: Brexit and the impacts on farmers and land owners

Peter Snodgrass, Head of Agriculture at Shakespeare Martineau, will be in conversation with Jason […]

DIY Will Drafting and Digital Assets – what can go wrong?

25 Feb

Debra Burton, Legal Director
DIY Will Drafting and Digital Assets – what can go wrong?

Discussing the common problems encountered with badly drafted Wills including construction issues, the risk […]

IR35 – what changes are expected in April 2021?

24 Feb

Rhys Wyborn, Partner
IR35 – what changes are expected in April 2021?

In this webinar, Rhys Wyborn – partner in our employment team reminds employers of […]

Our Latest Thoughts

All the latest views and insights on current topics.

Women in Planning mentoring scheme launches for International Women’s Day

8 Mar

Planning & Environmental

Women in Planning mentoring scheme launches for International Women’s Day

Read article Right Arrow

How to handle construction disputes effectively

4 Mar

Construction

How to handle construction disputes effectively

Read article Right Arrow

Stamp Duty Land Tax holiday – extension announced by the Chancellor and help to get on the housing ladder

3 Mar

Residential Conveyancing

Stamp Duty Land Tax holiday – extension announced by the Chancellor and help to get on the housing ladder

Read article Right Arrow

Marrons Planning shortlisted as finalists for two awards at the national RTPI Awards for Planning Excellence 2021

17 Feb

Marrons Planning

Marrons Planning shortlisted as finalists for two awards at the national RTPI Awards for Planning Excellence 2021

Read article Right Arrow

Shakespeare Martineau supports STOPageism campaign

27 Jan

Firm News

Shakespeare Martineau supports STOPageism campaign

Read article Right Arrow