This was an application by the claimant contractors (RJKL) to enforce an adjudicator’s decision in their favour in the sum of £19, 339.93, together with interest from the date of the decision 7 August 2006. The application was opposed on two grounds. First it was said that the claimant was seeking to enforce part of the decision and repudiate the rest. Second it was submitted that the defendants (RO) had a legitimate set-off arising out of the decision which extinguished the claim. According to the defendants the claimants wanted the sum of money owed to them but did not want to take responsibility for the supply of the windows and doors (another part of the adjudicator’s decision).

HHJ Coulson QC adopted the principles set out by Jackson J in Balfour Beatty Construction v Serco Limited [2004] EWHC 3336 (TCC) and Ramsey J in William Verry Limited v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Camden [2006] EWHC 761 (TCC). The judge held that the contract detailed a remedy for non-compliance and this issue was not relevant for an enforcement application of this kind. With regards to the second issue if it follows as a logical consequence from the adjudicator’s decision that a sum is due to the defendants by way of liquidated damages then the defendants can set off that sum. No such logic applied in this case. This was because there had not been an exhaustive investigation into delay, no extension of time claim had been made in the adjudication proceedings and a certificate giving entitlement to liquidated damages had not been issued.