Rokvic v Peacock
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HONORABLE MR JUSTICE AKENHEAD
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Construction Law
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, Miss Rokvic sought enforcement of adjudication decisions against Peacock relating to work on mechanical, electrical, security, and air conditioning systems. Three adjudications occurred, with the latter two being favorable to Rokvic, while negotiations ensued over their enforceability. The court found a binding agreement by conduct through payment and required discontinuation of proceedings. Moreover, costs were awarded to Miss Rokvic as the claimant.
Judgment
MR JUSTICE AKENHEAD: In these proceedings Miss Rokvic, who was the employer under a building contract, seeks the enforcement of two adjudication decisions in her favour in relation to work done by the defendant in relation to new mechanical electrical security and air conditioning systems at 8 Glasbury Road, London W14. There is no conflict but many years ago I lived at number 19 Glasbury Road, but that was a very long time ago. Essentially there have been three adjudications between the parties and in the first adjudication Peacock were the referring party and they secured a decision in their favour for £64,632.61, albeit they succeeded on the basis only that the sum, although due to them, did not take into account sums raised by the defendant as a set-off and counterclaim in respect of defects and the like, but in that first adjudication the adjudicator did decide that ultimately there was, or was likely to be, net sums due to the claimant. There was undoubtedly established by adjudication 1 a credit of just over £64,000 in favour of Peacock.
Two further adjudications were started shortly thereafter by Miss Rokvic against Peacock, Adjudication 2 relating to defective works and Adjudication 3 in respect of alleged delay in completing the works. In Adjudication 2 the adjudicator decided on 18 August 2014 that £138,596.29 plus interest was due to her and that the defendant should effectively be responsible for the adjudicator’s fees. The decision in Adjudication 3, also on the same date, decided that £10,000 was payable by way of damages for delay by Peacock to Miss Rokvic. There was a requirement for payment also in respect of adjudicators’ fees. Payment for Adjudication 2 and 3 sums was due on 26 August 2014 and, sensibly, correspondence was started between Holman Fenwick for Miss Rokvic and the defendant solicitors, who by this stage were Thomas Egger, and there was discussion between the solicitors as to the enforceability in relation to Adjudication 2. For instance, Thomas Egger in their letter of 9 September 2014 stated that they considered that the adjudication decisions in Adjudication 1 and 3 were enforceable but that Adjudication 2 was not enforceable. So an offer was made openly at that stage whereby Thomas Egger sought a net payment in their client’s favour discounting Adjudication 2. It is clear that there were without prejudice discussions and it is right that I have not been informed in any detail about those and what was said and