Management Solutions & Professional Consultants Limited -v- Bennett (Electrical) Services Limited
Case reference:
[2006] EWHC 1720 (TCC)
Monday, 10 July 2006
Key terms: Multiple adjudication Decisions - Set-off between Adjudicator's Decisions
The parties entered into two separate contracts. Disputes had arisen, under each contract that were referred to adjudication. One decision concluded that Bennett should pay Management Solutions £36,937.25. The other decision concluded that Management Solutions should pay Bennett £18,052.74. Both decisions were the subject of summary judgment applications. The question arose as to whether Bennett could set-off any judgment amount against the amount awarded by the second Adjudicator.
One of the contracts was based upon a letter dated 30 September 2004. Oral instructions were issued in respect of additional work to that contract. Bennett argued that the oral instructions meant that the varied work was outside of the operation of the sub-contract such that the agreement could not be said to be in writing for the purposes of Section 107 of the HGCRA. His Honour noted that the written sub-contract provided for the scope of work to be changed by the provision of written instructions. The works were therefore varied, albeit orally, under the main contract such that the entirety of the works as varied was covered by the contract.
The second sub-contract was in the form a purchase order. Management Solutions contended that it was not in writing, as the purchase order was simply an administrative document. His Honour concluded that the document had contractual effect, and recorded the contract in writing.
In conclusion, both contracts were in writing and both Adjudicators' decisions were valid. The two sums could be set-off against each other in order to produce a balance of £15,568.30 that was due to Management Solutions.
His Honour concluded that the victory was marginal, and decided that both sides should bear their own costs.
One of the contracts was based upon a letter dated 30 September 2004. Oral instructions were issued in respect of additional work to that contract. Bennett argued that the oral instructions meant that the varied work was outside of the operation of the sub-contract such that the agreement could not be said to be in writing for the purposes of Section 107 of the HGCRA. His Honour noted that the written sub-contract provided for the scope of work to be changed by the provision of written instructions. The works were therefore varied, albeit orally, under the main contract such that the entirety of the works as varied was covered by the contract.
The second sub-contract was in the form a purchase order. Management Solutions contended that it was not in writing, as the purchase order was simply an administrative document. His Honour concluded that the document had contractual effect, and recorded the contract in writing.
In conclusion, both contracts were in writing and both Adjudicators' decisions were valid. The two sums could be set-off against each other in order to produce a balance of £15,568.30 that was due to Management Solutions.
His Honour concluded that the victory was marginal, and decided that both sides should bear their own costs.