Image from Google Jackets

Air Design (Kent) Limited v Deerglen (Jersey) Limited [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2008] EWHC 3047 (TCC), 10 December 2008. Case considers whether an adjudicator's decision can be resisted at enforcement stage if it concerns more than one contract. Deerglen (D) contracted with Air Design (K) for provision of mechanical services under a "basebuild contract". In May 2007, D again required K to accomplish fit-outs work in behalf of a tenant. There was no formal contract for these works but a letter of intent. In September 2007, D and K entered an agreement for K to provide a Building Management System. In November 2007, D sent a letter to K summing up the value of all the work done by K, with a method and a timetable for all future payments. Disagreements arose as to the value of the work done, the amount left unpaid and the validity of contra charges. They referred these disagreements to adjudication. D argued that there were four different contracts, K that there was just one contract with variations. The adjudicator concluded that it was just one contract. The matter reached the court on the issue of enforcement of the adjudicator's decision. "Held": The judge considered that there was only one contract with variations and enforced the adjudicator's decision.

[2008] EWHC 3047 (TCC), 10 December 2008. Case considers whether an adjudicator's decision can be resisted at enforcement stage if it concerns more than one contract. Deerglen (D) contracted with Air Design (K) for provision of mechanical services under a "basebuild contract". In May 2007, D again required K to accomplish fit-outs work in behalf of a tenant. There was no formal contract for these works but a letter of intent. In September 2007, D and K entered an agreement for K to provide a Building Management System. In November 2007, D sent a letter to K summing up the value of all the work done by K, with a method and a timetable for all future payments. Disagreements arose as to the value of the work done, the amount left unpaid and the validity of contra charges. They referred these disagreements to adjudication. D argued that there were four different contracts, K that there was just one contract with variations. The adjudicator concluded that it was just one contract. The matter reached the court on the issue of enforcement of the adjudicator's decision. "Held": The judge considered that there was only one contract with variations and enforced the adjudicator's decision.