Lantrode attempted to resist enforcement of an Adjudicator’s decision on three grounds: (1) the enforcement action was an abuse of process because there was already pending court proceedings; (2) set-off; and (3) Harwood is or may be insolvent.

The Judge dismissed Lantrode’s arguments:

1. The nature of Adjudicator’s decision was interim and temporary. Therefore the fact there were other proceedings did not mean the enforcement application amounts to abuse.
2. Section 111 excludes the equitable rights of set-off.
3. Although a winding-up petition had been presented and a hearing set for less than two weeks from the date of the application, there was insufficient evidence for the Judge to determine if the petition would succeed or fail.

Judgment was given for Harwood with execution stayed until the hearing of the winding up petition. The stay was to be continued thereafter if a winding up order is made but otherwise to cease on dismissal of the winding up petition.