Makers wins High Court appeal against Camden

Makers has won a High Court judgement which enforces an earlier adjudication verdict that had gone in its favour.

With more than £1m at stake, client London Borough of Camden had dug in its heels, resisting the verdict made by the adjudicator five months ago – and also refusing to pay his fees.

Initially, Maker’s social housing contract was worth £4.3m.

“The client made changes in scope and in specification,” said Kevan Whitehouse, Makers UK finance director. “We were determined to bring Camden to book as it behaved disingenuously.”

Despite the latest ruling, it is far from the end of the battle. “In boxing parlance, we are still only in round three of a 10-round bout,” said Whitehouse.

Makers started internal and external refurbishment works on the Whittington Estate, Highgate, for Camden in 2005.

It had been working for 18 months when, in July 2007, Camden claimed to have terminated Makers’ employment under the contract.

Makers argues that the termination was invalid and referred the matter to adjudication.

The adjudicator’s decision was that Camden had wrongfully terminated the contract. Camden was ordered to pay the adjudicator’s fees.

However Camden refused to pay the fees, maintaining that the decision was void on the grounds of invalid appointment and/or the apparent bias of the adjudicator.

The adjudicator was a RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) appointment.

Makers applied to have the adjudicator’s decision enforced in the High Court’s Technology and Construction Court. There, Mr Justice Akenhead upheld the adjudicator’s decision in favour of Makers. Camden was ordered to pay the fees, together with the majority of Maker’s costs.

“The ruling opens an opportunity for us to press home the rest of our claims,” said Whitehouse. “We’ve not done that as yet. We’ve not been paid our full entitlement.

“We expected to be working until January 2008."

A Camden Council spokeswoman said: "Camden disputed the validity of the Adjudicator's decision as it regarded the appointment of the Adjudicator invalid and his decision therefore unenforceable.  The recent hearing before Mr Justice Akenhead considered only this issue, and the substantive matter as to Camden's decision to terminate Makers' employment under the contract has not been determined by the Technology and Construction Court.
 
"We stand by our decision to end Makers' employment for failing to make progress on the Whittington Estate and will be referring the case to the High Court in order to recover additional costs incurred as a result of Makers’ conduct."