MR JUSTICE MANN: This is an appeal from the decision of District Judge Crispin, given on 20 December 2010, in which he declined to set aside a statutory demand served by Barnes Webster & Sons Limited on Mr David Goronwy Emlyn Davies. Barnes Webster & Sons Limited are builders who have carried out works on land owned by Romford and Gidea Park Rugby Football Club, an unincorporated association.
The contract for works was a substantial one. It was dated 28 July 2008 and the main sum referred to in it is £954,878. Like many other major contracts, it is on the JCT 2007 terms and it provides for the payment of that sum of money, “or such other sum as shall become payable under this contract”. The works were done over a period of a year or so thereafter. As well as works comprised in that sum the builders claim to be entitled to an additional sum of some £147,000-odd in respect of proper variations under the contract. There was originally in the context of this dispute a dispute as to whether or not those sums had yet been proved to be properly due. However, by a process of certification completed only very recently, and since the judgment appealed from, that particular aspect of the matter has fallen away. There is no practical dispute as to whether that sum on money is owing under the contract. The question is by whom is it owing?
The Rugby Club is an unincorporated association. Mr Davies is the President and one of the trustees. As one of the trustees he holds the club property including the club playing premises. He did not sign the contract. The contract was signed by Mr Smith, who was at the time the treasurer of the club. Although he obviously signed using his name, the employer in the contract is described as, “Romford and Gidea Park Rugby Football Club” with a “Registered office” at Crow Lane, Romford.
Although he did not sign the contract himself, Mr Davies has been served with a statutory demand. The statutory demand is dated 7 July 2010. It demands the payment of £148,000-odd which, allowing for some retentions, is the sum said to be still due and owing under the contract. The £148,000 is the sum due over and above the £954,000 sum to which I have referred.
The statutory demand is, therefore, predicated on the fact that Mr Davies is liable. It is addressed to a “Dai G E Davies (as Trustee of Romford and Gidea Park Rugby Football Club”. The point has been taken that as trustee Mr Davies cannot be liable for the debt. That is a point which is not go
