There were several decisions in the on-going case of Harlow & Milner Ltd v Linda Teasdale (January 2006, TCC, HHJ Coulson QC and 15 March 2006, TCC, HHJ Coulson QC). The first in January 2006 related to an adjudicator’s award in favour of the Claimant in the sum of £90,194.53 including interest. The second decision in March 2006 arose as a result of non-payment by the defendant of the amount awarded by the adjudicator and enforced by the Court in January 2006. In February the claimant made an application for an interim charging order, which the court approved. The claimant requested that the interim charging order be made final. The defendant did not attend and was not represented, however their solicitor raised in correspondence some technical issues, which His Honour considered. His Honour Judge Coulson QC made it quite clear that the defendant should have honoured the court judgment and that the order should be made final.

The final decision in was delivered in July 2006 and was an application by the claimant for an order for sale of property. The defendant had not paid the judgment sum. The Court considered whether there should be a stay of the order for sale. The claimant argued that to do so would frustrate the adjudication and enforcement process.

This Court noted that if it did not grant the application for an order for sale of property because there was an on-going arbitration between the parties it would mean “that any unsuccessful party in adjudication would know that, if they refused to pay up for long enough, and started their own arbitration, they could eventually render the adjudicator’s decision of no effect. It would be condoning, in clear terms, a judgment debtor’s persistent default…”

The Court therefore held that in light of the defendant’s on-going refusal, or inability, to meet the judgment sum the claimant was entitled for an order for sale.