The case concerned an application for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision. An adjudication was commenced by MG Scaffolding (Oxford) Limited (“MGS”) against MCR Property Group (“MCRPG”). MCRPG is the trading name of Palmloch Ltd (“Palmloch”). The key issue for determination was whether the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction, on the basis that the adjudication was commenced and pursued against MCRPG. 

The notice of adjudication identifying MCRPG as the respondent was sent by e-mail from MGS to Mr Brown of Palmloch. Mr Brown sent a letter to the adjudicator noting that, amongst other things, MCRPG did not recognise any claim or issue requiring resolution from an adjudicator and that MCRPG was no more than a brand name, holding no assets of its own. This was taken to be a jurisdictional challenge by the adjudicator, who provided a non-binding view that he was not persuaded by the challenge. The adjudication proceeded, the adjudicator made his decision and MGS sought to enforce the decision.   

The Judge noted that, if there was an argument that has reasonable prospects of success that the adjudication was not between the correct parties to the relevant construction contract, the application for summary judgment would be refused. The Judge held that it was common ground in the enforcement proceedings that: (i) the correct parties to the construction contract were MGS and Palmloch; and (ii) the adjudication was commenced and pursued against MCRPG, the trading name of Palmloch, with no legal existence of its own.

The Judge referred to the cases of Jawaby Property Investment Ltd v The Interiors Group Ltd [2016] BLR 328 and Easybiz Investments v Sinograin and Another [2011] Lloyds LR 688 when considering how he should approach the construction of a notice of adjudication. The Judge noted that the correct approach is to assess the notice as a whole against its contractual setting and consider how it would have informed a reasonable recipient, concentrating on the substance rather than the form. The Judge noted that a misdescription of a party in a notice does not itself affect the validity of the notice, however, it may be different if there is a genuine lack of clarity as to the proper parties of the adjudication.  

The Judge considered that, on a proper construction of the notice of adjudication, there was no genuine lack of clarity as to the proper parties of the adjudication. The Judge took into consideration the following points when reaching his decision:

1. The notice of adjudication expressly referred to the specific property and project;

2. Other details (such as reference to the quotation, pre-contract correspondence and the payment notices) also put beyond doubt the property and the project to which the notice related to; and 

3. The relevant property was owned by Palmloch and there is no suggestion that any other MCRPG companies were involved in the property or project in any way.

The Judge rejected Palmloch’s claim that, by using Palmloch’s trading name in the notice of adjudication, the notice was ineffective. The Judge held that a reasonable recipient construing the notice in its context would have understood that the use of the trading name was an unambiguous reference to Palmloch. Summary judgment was awarded and the adjudicator’s decision was enforced. 

This case is a reminder of the importance of reserving and maintaining a jurisdictional challenge.  Throughout, Palmloch maintained their reservation and so were able to rely on such points at enforcement stage.  It is also an important reminder that trading names are not a reason to reject enforcemen