Galliford (UK) Limited t/a Galliford Northern v Markel Capital Limited
Monday, 12 May 2003
Key terms: Adjudicator's decision - Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 - Contractual Obligation to Pay - Court Judgment
The Claimant, Galliford was the main contractor and MHA acted as consulting engineers. The Defendants were MHA's insurers. During construction the roof slab was found to be inadequate because of MHA's failure to produce a design or structural calculations. As a result of the amendments to the design the project suffered a 24 week delay. MHA passed a resolution for voluntary winding up and a liquidator was then appointed. An Adjudicator was then appointed under the Act. The adjudicator decided that MHA were liable to Galliford.
Galliford then argued that the Adjudicator's decision was adequate for the purposes of claiming an indemnity from MHA's insurers under the insurance policy. The insurer's argued that the Adjudicator's decision was not sufficient, and in order to establish a right under the 1930 Act steps must be taken to enforce the Adjudicator's decision.
HHJ Behren's considered that the key question was whether there was a transfer of liability to the insurer following the Adjudicator's decision in October 2002. The Judge recognised that although an Adjudicator's decision was provisional it gave rise to an immediate payment obligation (Levolux v Ferson [2002] EWCA Civ 11). However, the contractual obligation to pay was not an absolute obligation to pay. This was because the court might not enforce an Adjudicator' decision if the Adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction. As a result liability under the insurance policy was not established unless or until the Adjudicator's decision was enforced by a judgment of the court. So, the recipient of a favourable Adjudicator's decision against a Defendant that is insolvent but insured will need to enforce that decision in the court before being able to claim against the insured under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930.
Galliford then argued that the Adjudicator's decision was adequate for the purposes of claiming an indemnity from MHA's insurers under the insurance policy. The insurer's argued that the Adjudicator's decision was not sufficient, and in order to establish a right under the 1930 Act steps must be taken to enforce the Adjudicator's decision.
HHJ Behren's considered that the key question was whether there was a transfer of liability to the insurer following the Adjudicator's decision in October 2002. The Judge recognised that although an Adjudicator's decision was provisional it gave rise to an immediate payment obligation (Levolux v Ferson [2002] EWCA Civ 11). However, the contractual obligation to pay was not an absolute obligation to pay. This was because the court might not enforce an Adjudicator' decision if the Adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction. As a result liability under the insurance policy was not established unless or until the Adjudicator's decision was enforced by a judgment of the court. So, the recipient of a favourable Adjudicator's decision against a Defendant that is insolvent but insured will need to enforce that decision in the court before being able to claim against the insured under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930.