The facts

In 2016 Aygun engaged Gosvenor to install cladding at a hotel project in Southampton. The works were delayed and Gosvenor commenced adjudication in September 2017. In a decision dated 16 November 2017 the adjudicator awarded Gosvenor £553,958.47 plus VAT. Gosvenor then commenced enforcement proceedings in the TCC. 

On 15 January 2018 Aygun served its defence alleging for the first time that a substantial proportion of the sum awarded to Gosvenor was based upon fraudulent invoices. Aygun contended: that the maximum valuation of the work was around £100,000; that the overcharging had been deliberate; that there had been collusion between Gosvenor and Aygun’s own project manager, who had since disappeared with a laptop containing Aygun’s site labour records; and, that one of Aygun’s witnesses had been intimidated by Gosvenor employees. 

Aygun said fraud had not been raised in the adjudication because the relevant information had not previously been available and/or could not have been obtained in the context of the tight adjudication timetable. Aygun therefore opposed Gosvenor’s application for summary judgment and in the alternative sought a stay of execution.  

Gosvenor did not serve any reply evidence and the parties’ applications came before the court on 1 February 2018. Following the distribution of the draft judgment on 20 February Gosvenor applied to adduce fresh evidence and sought an opportunity to make further submissions.  

…