Citation: [2023] EWHC 2576 (TCC)
Citation: [2023] EWHC 2576 (TCC)
The Court dismissed an application by the claimant (‘J’) in one of two matters before the court: (i) permission to appeal the 6 October 2023 Judgment (‘third judgment’), in which the court had granted an application by a contractor (‘A’) for a stay of execution of a judgment requiring it to pay to J an amount of money; and (ii) directions flowing from the third judgment.
In seeking leave to appeal, J had challenged the court’s finding, in granting A the stay of execution, that A’s financial position had been aggravated by J’s conduct. The court held, inter alia, that it was obvious that J’s conduct had caused A financial problems, and that J was seeking to stifle what might prove to be a legitimate attempt to set aside a wrong decision issued against A at adjudication. J was refused permission to appeal.
In the second application, the court issued directions at A’s request. The Court made a disclosure order “for the sake of good order”, even though it found that it “likely that disclosure in this case will be either unnecessary or a pure formality”: [27].
The Judge reserved all future steps including the trial to himself “given the extensive involvement” he has had in the case, as this is the fourth time the case has been to court. The first was on 15 February 2023; the second was on 16 June 2023; and the third was on 6 October 2023.
The Claimant was represented by James Frampton and instructed by Hawkswell Kilvington. The Defendant was represented by one of its directors, Mr Paduraru.
