![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction Court) Decisions >> Willow Corp SARL v MTD Contractors Ltd [2019] EWHC 1192 (TCC) (03 May 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2019/1192.html Cite as: [2019] EWHC 1192 (TCC) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
HT-2019-000095 |
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS
TECHNOLOGY & CONSTRUCTION COURT (QBD)
Fetter Lane London EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
WILLOW CORP SARL | Claimant | |
-and- | Defendant | |
MTD CONTRACTORS LTD |
Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London, EC4A 1JS
Tel No: 020 7404 1400
Web: www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/ Email: [email protected]
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
MR A JINADU (instructed by BDB Pitmans) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"It sometimes happens that one party to an adjudication commences enforcement proceedings while the other commences proceedings under Part 8 in order to challenge the validity of the adjudicator's award. This duplication of effort is unnecessary and involves the parties and extra costs, especially if the two actions are commenced at different court centres. Accordingly, there should be sensible discussions between the parties or their lawyers in order to agree the appropriate venue and also to agree who should be claimant and who defendant. All the issues raised by each party can and should be raised in a single action; however, in cases where an adjudicator has made clear error (but has acted within his jurisdiction) it may, on occasions, be appropriate to bring proceedings under Part 8 for a declaration as a pre-emptive response to an anticipated application to enforce the decision."
"We are in discussions with BCLP who represent Willow, the other party in these cases, with regard to agreeing directions for the cases to be heard together. In relation to this, below is a copy of an email from the court which shows it is the view of Fraser J these cases should be heard together. Would it be possible, please, for a one-day hearing to be listed for 13 or 14 May with half a day reading time allocated for the court before the hearing?"
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.
Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS
Tel No: 020 7404 1400
Email: [email protected]