000			02166cab a2200205 4500
001			##L134528
008			060814n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u134528
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aM Rohde Construction v Nicholas Markham-David
260			_c2006
520			_a[2006] EWHC 814 (TCC), 20 March 2006. M engaged R to carry out building works. After disputes arose in relation to quality of work and valuations, R referred its claim to adjudication. M had by then moved house, although he had not changed his business address. Notice of adjudication was served at M's previous home address. During the course of the adjudication, various letters were sent to M, and were all returned undelivered. The adjudicator made an award in R's favour. R commenced proceedings for enforcement; the court documents were served both at M's previous address and the address of his estranged wife. M did not respond, and judgment was given in favour of R. Over three years later, M applied to have judgment set aside, on the basis that he had been unaware of the litigation until two months previously. "Held": the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s115 states that if a document is addressed and sent by post to the addressee's last known principal residence then it shall be treated as effectively served. In this case, there was a serious factual issue as to whether R had had available during the adjudication a ready means of contacting M (at his business address) which it chose neither to use nor to communicate to the adjudicator. A defence was therefore available to M which had a real prospect of success. The default judgment was therefore set aside.
590			_aIKA220806
650	2	4	_aM ROHDE CONSTRUCTION V MARKHAM-DAVID
650	2	4	_aHOUSING GRANTS, CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2006/814.html _zView the item free of charge at www.bailii.org/...
942			_n0
999			_c77551 _d77551