Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
LPCD(I)A 1998 implies a number of terms into commercial contracts for the supply of goods and services. In particular, LPCD(I)A 1998 prescribes a statutory rate of interest of 8% above the Bank of England’s official dealing rate for late payment
of commercial debts. The creditor is further entitled to ‘compensation arising out of late payment’, comprising a fixed sum.
In addition, since March 2013, creditors have been entitled to claim further sums by way of ‘compensation arising out of late payment’ to cover the costs of recovering debts to which LPCD(I)A 1998 applies. LPCD(I)A 1998, s 5A(2A) now provides:
If the reasonable costs of the supplier in recovering the debt are not met by the fixed sum, the supplier shall also be entitled to a sum equivalent to the difference between the fixed sum and those costs.
There has been some debate amongst construction law practitioners as to whether or not LPCD(I)A 1998, s 5A(2A) conflicts with section 108A of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996). HGCRA 1996, s 108A provides that ‘any
contractual provision made between the parties to a construction contract which concerns the allocation as between those parties of costs relating to the adjudication of a dispute arising under a construction contract’ is ‘ineffective’
unless it is made in writing:
I have explored in some detail the question of whether or not any conflict genuinely exists in my paper ‘Recovering Adjudication Costs under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998’. The paper was awarded second prize in the
Society of Construction Law’s 2015 Hudson Prize competition and will shortly be published by the Society. While I have concluded that there is arguably no conflict between the two provisions, we now have the benefit of the first court decision
to consider an adjudicator’s award directing payment of ‘debt recovery costs’ under LPCD(I)A, s 5A(2A).
In Lulu Construction Limited v Mulalley & Co Limited  EWHC 1852 (TCC),
a dispute was referred to adjudication by the paying party (Mulalley) to determine the sum due to the sub-contractor and responding party, Lulu, under the terms of the sub-contract between the parties. During the adjudication, Lulu claimed 'debt recovery
costs’ pursuant to LPCD(I)A 1998, s 5A(2A). This issue was raised for ‘for the first time’' in Lulu’s rejoinder and was met by a jurisdictional objection by Mulalley.
In his decision, the adjudicator directed that Mulalley must pay Lulu £240,324.77. Mulalley paid £182,863.80 of the sum awarded, but disputed Lulu’s claim for accrued and continuing interest and ‘debt recovery costs’ in the
sum of £47,666.27.
At the hearing of Lulu’s Part 24 (summary judgment) application to enforce the adjudicator’s decision, Mulalley conceded that the interest element of the disputed balance was due, but disputed the claim in respect of debt recovery costs on
the grounds that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to make any decision in respect of that claim because it was not part of the dispute referred to him.
Given that the debt recovery costs were being claimed by Lulu as the responding party in the adjudication, the Court noted that ‘it is hardly surprising that the claim for debt recovery costs was not referred to in the Notice of Adjudication’
prepared by Mulalley. The court referred to the decision of Mr Justice Akenhead in Allied P & L Limited v Paradigm Housing Group Limited  EWHC 2890 (TCC), at para 30(d), which noted:
[…]if the basic claim, assertion or position has been put forward by one party and the other disputes it, the dispute referred to adjudication will or may include claims for relief which are consequential upon and incidental to it and which
enable the dispute, effectively, to be resolved. Thus, even if the claim did not as such seek a declaration or discretionary interest or costs, it is so connected with and ancillary to the referred dispute as properly to be considered as part
Applying the foregoing principles, the court held that the debt recovery costs claimed by Lulu were ‘clearly connected with and ancillary to the referred dispute and must properly be considered part of it’. The costs claimed ‘are the
costs of running the adjudication which was instituted by the Notice of Adjudication’.
Accordingly, the court held that the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine that element of the dispute and granted summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.
It is important to bear in mind, however, that this does not mean that the court agreed with the adjudicator’s reasoning with regard to the application of LPCD(I)A 1998, s 5A(2A). Nor did the court comment upon, or seek to resolve, any perceived
‘tension’ between LPCD(I)A 1998, s 5A(2A) and HGCRA 1996, s 108A. The Court simply agreed that the adjudicator was entitled to decide the issue.
As Chadwick LJ said in Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard  EWCA Civ 1358,  All ER (D) 202 (Nov):
The objective which underlies the Act and the statutory scheme requires the courts to respect and enforce the adjudicator's decision unless it is plain that the question which he has decided was not the question referred to him or the manner in which
he has gone about his task is obviously unfair.[…]The need to have the “right” answer has been subordinated to the need to have an answer quickly.
Unless and until a court is asked to resolve whether or not a conflict exists between LPCD(I)A 1998, s 5A(2A) and HGCRA 1996, s 108A, if an adjudicator is asked to determine a party’s entitlement to 'debt recovery costs' under LPCD(I)A 1998, s 5A(2)
and does so (either for or against the claiming party), Lulu v Mulalley will undoubtedly be cited as authority that such a decision should not be impeached.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
0330 161 1234