The defendant subcontracted with a main contractor for the supply and installation of public health works on a site in Burgess Hill, Sussex. In turn, the defendant concluded a sub-sub-contract for said works with the claimant, a company in administration. The dispute was about the claimant’s entitlement to payment which the claimant sought to enforce by way of summary judgement. The defendant handed over a cheque for payment but countermanded payment before the claimant duly represented the cheque.

Firstly, the defendant contended no money was due and payable at all under the terms of the sub-sub-contract since the work done by the claimant was partially defective and incomplete. The Court did not accept this argument. Partial failure of consideration required an “error in adding up the account” which was not apparent in this case.

Further, the defendant had commenced a Part 20 claim against the claimant for damages for defective and incomplete work. On this account he sought to stay the summary judgement pending the hearing on that claim. The Court did not allow this motion either. It maintained a stay required “exceptional circumstances” which the defendant had failed to show. In particular, a set-off pursuant to 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 was not available since the rule does not apply to companies in administration.