The High Court gave Total Highway Maintenance Ltd seven days to pay a construction adjudication award to Gravity Construction Ltd, or judgment could be entered against it for the amount claimed.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons made the order on 26 January 2021 under section 6(11) of the Construction Contracts Act 2013. Gravity was given leave to enforce the adjudicator’s decision in the same manner as a High Court judgment or order. The order was framed so that judgment would be entered only if the sum was not paid to Gravity’s solicitors within seven days.
The adjudicator had decided on 28 April 2020 that Total Highway Maintenance should pay Gravity €135,458.92, net of VAT, within 14 days, along with adjudicator’s fees of €13,168.75 plus VAT where applicable. Total Highway Maintenance initially argued that payment should wait until arbitration, but later indicated it was prepared to pay the award, adjudicator’s costs and interest, while retaining its right to pursue arbitration.
The judge said that change in position did not remove Gravity’s entitlement to a court order. He described the “unless” order as a compromise: it provided the relief sought while allowing a short period for payment before judgment was formally entered. The case was listed for mention on 3 February 2021.
The judge also ordered Total Highway Maintenance to pay Gravity’s costs on a party-and-party basis, with the amount to be determined by a legal costs adjudicator if the parties could not agree. Gravity could recover the costs of two sets of written submissions and a directions hearing on 17 September 2020, including senior and junior counsel’s costs.
The judge declined to reduce the costs award because of a settlement offer sent by Total Highway Maintenance’s solicitors on 23 December 2020. The offer proposed a “reasonable contribution” to Gravity’s legal fees, a phrase the judge found ambiguous, and was made shortly before the scheduled hearing. He also noted that the respondent had raised objections it ultimately did not pursue, delaying the proceedings by about six months.
One set of costs was allowed as a set-off: the respondent could recover the minimal costs arising from an inadvertently defective affidavit that was later replaced. The judge accepted that the error was inadvertent and said there was no suggestion of impropriety.