Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

LJR Interiors Ltd v Cooper Construction Ltd [2023] EWHC 3339 (TCC)

In LJR Interiors Ltd v Cooper Construction Ltd the TCC held that the Adjudicator was wrong to reject the responding party’s limitation defence such that his decision was void and unenforceable.

The Background to the Case

LJR Interiors and Cooper entered into a written contract pursuant to which LJR agreed to carry out dry lining, plastering and screed works at a property in Oxfordshire. Almost 8 years after completion of the works, LJR submitted an interim application no 4 to Cooper for payment for work done. Following Cooper’s failure to respond to AfP4 or pay and/or send a pay less notice in respect of the same, LJR commenced adjudication proceedings. The Adjudicator awarded LJR the sum claimed in its AfP4.

LJR started Part 7 enforcement proceedings and applied for summary judgment following Cooper’s failure to pay the adjudication award. Cooper responded to this by starting their own Part 8 proceedings for a declaration that the adjudicator had been wrong to dismiss its limitation defence; that LJR’s cause of action was in fact statute-barred; and the decision was therefore void and unenforceable.

What Did the Court Decide?  

The Adjudicator had been wrong to conclude that section 5 of the Limitation Act was not relevant to the question of whether interim application no 4 was valid. The Court also found that it would be unconscionable to ignore the Adjudicator’s error. The Adjudicator’s decision was void and unenforceable. Cooper had a complete defence to LJR’s claim for payment – i.e. LJR’s claim for payment was time-barred because the limitation period to bring such a claim had expired.

The Conclusion to the Case

This case is the first reported case where the court has refused to enforce an adjudicator’s decision due to limitation. Parties should take this case as an important reminder that failure to take prompt action against another party may prove costly where limitation may be relied upon as a defence.

Download this Case Study Here

For more information contact:

David Spires

Partner

E-mail: DSpires@hklegal.co.uk