The Claimant applied for summary judgment under Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules for immediate enforcement of an Adjudicator’s Decision. There was a contract between the Second Claimant and Hubbard, the Defendant. It related to atrium bridges, staircases and metalwork items for a development in London in 2003.

In September 2006, the assets and liabilities of T & T Fabrications were assigned to T & T Fabrications Limited. On 12 November, T & T Fabrications (the firm rather than the limited company) commenced adjudication. It was not possible for the firm to be the beneficiary of any Decision made by the Adjudicator because the rights and remedies had been assigned to the limited company.

The main issue in this case related to whether there was a Contract in writing for the purpose of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. The Contract was a simple one, and did not contain adjudication provisions. Nonetheless, it was a construction contract within the meaning of the Act and so the Referring Party in the Adjudication argued that the Adjudication Scheme had been implied pursuant to the Act. The Defendant argued that while there may be a Contract, there was not a Contract “in writing” within the meaning of Section 107 of the Act.