A & V Building Solution Ltd v J & B Hopk

A & V Building Solution Ltd v J & B Hopkins Ltd

Citation: [2024] EWHC 2914 (TCC)

Background Facts

A & V claimed payment for measured works, variations, and further losses due to alleged breaches by J&BH.
Several adjudications took place, including conflicting decisions on payment applications and final account valuations.
There were extensive prior court proceedings, including Part 8 claims and appeals to the Court of Appeal, resulting in a complex procedural background.
Ultimately, A & V claimed around £744,000; J&BH counterclaimed and raised contra charges.

Merits findings:
- A & V succeeded substantially on its measured works and variations claims, being awarded £407,156 and £53,200 respectively.
- A & V failed almost entirely on its large damages claims (originally over £645,000), receiving only a minimal award of around £6,000 on that head.
- J&BH's contra charges were dismissed.

Final sums & adjustments:
- After considering payments already made and other adjustments (VAT, interest, adjudicators' fees), A & V was entitled to about £96,500 before further interest.

Costs decisions:
- The court carefully reviewed multiple settlement offers under CPR Part 36 and general offers.
- A & V was awarded its costs up to 4 December 2023.
- From 1 March 2024 onwards, A & V had failed to beat a valid Part 36 offer by J&BH and was ordered to pay J&BH’s costs for that later period.
- For the period between 4 December 2023 and 1 March 2024, A & V was awarded costs, subject to some adjustments for its unsuccessful damages claim.

Enforcement of adjudicator’s decisions:
- Reaffirmed the principle of “pay now, argue later” in adjudication enforcement, consistent with prior cases like Macob v Morrison and Carillion v Devonport.

Approach to large and exaggerated claims:
- The case highlights that even where a party wins overall, significant exaggeration in claims can affect costs recovery and credibility.

Part 36 offers and costs consequences:
- Reinforced strict application of CPR Part 36, showing the serious cost implications when a claimant fails to beat a defendant’s formal offer.
- Underlines the importance of realistic and timely settlement proposals.

Litigant in person costs:
- Detailed application of CPR 46.5 in assessing costs where a corporate party acts through an internal representative, including use of a capped hourly rate and partial recovery.

Set-off and Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) deductions:
- Clarified that CIS tax deductions do not reduce the contractor’s overall liability to the subcontractor; they are treated as payments on account to HMRC.

Importance of contemporaneous offers:
- Demonstrated that both compliant Part 36 offers and informal settlement offers are heavily scrutinised when allocating costs.