Citation: [2020] EWHC 3511 (TCC)
In this judgment, the High Court (TCC) held that a settlement compromising an adjudicator’s decision which had been entered into “subject to contract” did not amount to an “agreement” for the purposes of s.108(3) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, with the result that the adjudicator’s decision remained binding and could be enforced. HHJ Bird, sitting as a High Court Judge, found that the defendant’s case that the parties had proceeded to waive the “subject to contract” proviso by going on to perform parts of the agreement had no prospect of success at trial. The court went on to sever the small portion of the sum awarded by adjudicator in respect of legal costs, applying Enviroflow Management Ltd v Redhill Works (Nottingham) Ltd [2017] EWHC 2159 (TCC).
Harry Smith acted for the successful Claimant.
