Eurocom Ltd v Siemens Plc
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HON MR JUSTICE RAMSEY
Areas of Law
- Commercial Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Eurocom attempted to enforce an adjudicator's decision against Siemens, which resisted on multiple grounds including conflict of interest and issues of natural justice. The court ruled in favor of Siemens, identifying fraudulent misrepresentation in the adjudicator's appointment, overlapping matters with previous adjudications, and supporting legal principles that nullify advantages obtained through fraud. Eurocom's application for summary judgment was subsequently dismissed.
Judgment
Mr Justice Ramsey:
Introduction
In these proceedings the Claimant (“Eurocom”) seeks to enforce an adjudicator’s decision against the Defendant (“Siemens”). Siemens resists the application for summary judgment on a number of grounds: that the adjudicator’s appointment was invalid; that the adjudicator decided a dispute different to the one in the notice of adjudication and/or a dispute that had already been determined in a previous adjudication and that the adjudication procedure was unfair in breach of the requirements of natural justice. Siemens contends that, to the extent that the court decides that there should be summary judgment, there should be a stay of enforcement of any judgment in favour of Eurocom.
Background
Siemens engaged Eurocom under a sub-contract dated 20 April 2011 to install communications systems at Charing Cross and Embankment underground stations (“the Sub-Contract”). Those systems were designed and supplied by Siemens under a Main Contract with London Underground Limited. Disputes arose between Eurocom and Siemens concerning delay to the commencement of the work, variations, prolongation, delay and disruption. On 20 July 2012 Eurocom served a notice of adjudication on Siemens.
On 1 August 2012, Siemens sought to terminate Eurocom’s employment under the Sub-Contract for default and, thereafter, alternatively at will. The notice of adjudication served on 20 July 2012 lapsed and Eurocom gave a second notice of adjudication on 8 August 2012. This led to the appointment of Mr Matthew Molloy as adjudicator in respect of this adjudication (“the First Adjudication”). He made a decision on 27 September 2012 in which he determined that, in fact, there was a net amount of £35,283.98 due from Eurocom to Siemens but that this led to no payment at that stage.
Over a year later, Eurocom issued a claim document dated 21 October 2013 (“the October Claim”) which was accompanied by 16 files of supporting documents. That document was served by Eurocom’s representative, Knowles Limited (“Knowles”). In the covering letter Knowles notified Siemens that they required the claim to be satisfied by Siemens within 28 days, failing which Eurocom would instigate proceedings.
On 18 November 2013 Siemens responded to that claim requesting documents and stating that they would then agree timescales to assess the claim fully. They said that “ for the avoidance of doubt, your client’s claim is currently rejected. ”
On 21 November 2013 Knowles serve