Nageh -v- Richard Giddings & Another
Case reference:
[2006] EWHC 3240 (TCC)
Friday, 8 December 2006
Key terms: Application to set aside order for summary judgment – Enforcement – Adjudicator’s Decision – Service of Documents
Mrs Nageh engaged the defendant architects to carry out works to her home in Fulham. The project did not proceed well, and she referred issues in connection with the architect’s negligence to adjudication. The Adjudicator awarded her £23,372.43.
The architects did not pay. On 11 March 2005 summary judgment in favour of Mrs Nageh was ordered.
The architects argued that they were not aware of the adjudication proceedings nor the summary judgment proceedings. They argued that there would be a breach of natural justice if the judgment was not set aside.
HHJ Coulson considered the lengths that the claimant had gone to in order to serve the proceedings on the defendant. He concluded that the claimant had done everything that would be required of them under the Civil Procedure Rules. The application for summary judgment had been served both upon the defendant’s last known residence and upon their last known place of business as architects. If the architects were not aware of the documents, then it was the architect’s fault.
Further, the defendant had waited for more than a year after summary judgment had been entered against them. The architects had therefore not taken proper steps promptly. Finally, even if the judge had to re-consider the summary judgment application again, then he would still have ordered enforcement.
The architects did not pay. On 11 March 2005 summary judgment in favour of Mrs Nageh was ordered.
The architects argued that they were not aware of the adjudication proceedings nor the summary judgment proceedings. They argued that there would be a breach of natural justice if the judgment was not set aside.
HHJ Coulson considered the lengths that the claimant had gone to in order to serve the proceedings on the defendant. He concluded that the claimant had done everything that would be required of them under the Civil Procedure Rules. The application for summary judgment had been served both upon the defendant’s last known residence and upon their last known place of business as architects. If the architects were not aware of the documents, then it was the architect’s fault.
Further, the defendant had waited for more than a year after summary judgment had been entered against them. The architects had therefore not taken proper steps promptly. Finally, even if the judge had to re-consider the summary judgment application again, then he would still have ordered enforcement.