Citation: All ER (D) 411 TCC, (2009) 119 Con LR 130
Nature of case: The claimant contractor sought to enforce an adjudicator’s decision in its favour. The defendant owner argued that it should be entitled to a stay of enforcement because of the claimant’s financial circumstances, which included county court judgments and a credit reference agency report. The owner also claimed LADs and said these would render the contractor unable to repay the sum awarded, should that be decided. The court rejected any entitlement to a stay to await the subsequent adjudication on the LADs. Credit references should be approached with caution and the county court judgments did not establish inability to pay. A decisive factor was the existence of a parent company guarantee in the owner’s favour.