When Insolvency Trumps Rough Justice: Injunctions and Stays of Execution of Adjudication Proceedings

Accessing papers

If you are logged in as a member or a registered academic, you will see a link to download the paper for FREE. The link is just above the Add to Cart button.

If you wish to purchase the paper, you must be logged in first (click here to log in, or click here to register). You will then see the Add to Cart button. You may also have a choice of preferred format if both are available - PDF download costs £3 inc VAT, printed version costs £7.50 inc postage (no VAT). Choosing one or the other changes the price displayed.

When you are ready to check out, use the 'View basket' link in the top left of the website.

David Sears QC, Crispin Winser and Joshua Brown

January 2020

A paper presented to the Society of Construction Law at meetings in London on 4th December 2018, in Manchester on 16th January 2019 and in Cardiff on 18th September 2019

This paper considers an area of law which continues to give rise to difficulty: the interaction between the payment and adjudication legislation and the distinct, and much older, body of law relating to insolvency. The paper looks at insolvency as a reason to refuse to grant summary judgment and the issues arising from winding-up petitions and stays of execution. The authors examine the three first instance decisions that highlighted these issues in 2018, namely Gosvenor v Aygun, Lonsdale v Bresco and Primus v Cannon, and their respective Court of Appeal judgments. The authors reflect on the issues left unresolved by these cases, pending the appeal to the Supreme Court in Bresco which is due to be heard in 2020.

Introduction ­– Background – Insolvency as a reason to refuse to grant summary judgment – The insolvency safeguards: winding-up petitions – Stays of execution – Gosvenor v Aygun ­– Fraser J – The Court of Appeal – Lonsdale v Bresco – Fraser J – The Court of Appeal – Lingering uncertainties – Meadowside Building Developments v 12-18 Hill Street Management Company – Primus ­– HHJ Waksman QC ­– The Court of Appeal – The recent TCC decision in Indigo Projects London Limited v RAZIN – Conclusion.

The authors: David Sears QC, Crispin Winser and Joshua Brown are barristers practising from Crown Office Chambers in London.

Text: 32 pages

Paper number: 
221
January 2020, printed and online, 1MB
£3.00

Our papers

The Society has published nearly 400 papers since 1984. Some are published both in hard copy and electronically (numbered), others in electronic format only (number prefixed 'D'). The hard copy papers can be purchased (except those marked with an asterisk which are no longer available). They are all also available as PDF files to download.

Those available as downloads can be accessed free by members and registered academics (students and staff) - if logged in, they will see a link to the file just above the Add to Cart button on each paper's page. Others can purchase the PDF file for a cost of £3.00. Note that this sum includes VAT, since VAT is chargeable on digital files.

For further instructions on downloading, click here. The PDF file will only open on your computer if you have Adobe Acrobat installed (to obtain a free copy, click here). To save the paper to your computer, choose the 'save' icon on the Acrobat toolbar before opening the paper.

For personal use only

The papers on this website are for use by SCL members (and those who pay for them) only, and papers may be downloaded, printed and/or otherwise retained for that purpose only by members of the SCL (and those who purchase them).  The availability of all papers past and present represents a significant benefit to members of SCL and wider dissemination of SCL papers dilutes that to the detriment of the membership.  Further and more importantly, copyright in the papers belongs jointly to the writers of the paper and to the SCL, and the SCL is not therefore in a position to provide any wider licence.  Accordingly the SCL asks members and those who purchase papers not to disseminate papers more widely than their licence allows (e.g. by posting them on internal legal resource intranet databases and the like). 

Feedback