Review of Coulson J’s decision in Hutton for Practical Law

04 Sep 2017

Helena White talks about the implications of Coulson J's decision in Hutton v Wilson for defendants who are dissatisfied with an adjudicator's decision and want to resist enforcement by raising substantive issues. 

This 15-minute video is comprised of the following chapters:

  • The facts of the Hutton case
  • Alternative ways to contest an adjudication enforcement
  • Coulson J's decision in Hutton
  • Coulson J's test for deciding if a Part 8 claim can be heard
  • The meaning of 'unconscionability'
  • The decision's impact on subsequent cases
  • Practical tips

Case references: 

  • Hutton Construction Ltd v Wilson Properties (London) Ltd [2017] EWHC 517 (TCC)
  • Caledonian Modular Ltd v Mar City Developments Ltd [2015] EWHC 1855 (TCC)
  • Macob Civil Engineering Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd [1999] C.L.C. 739
  • Geoffrey Osborne Ltd v Atkins Rail Ltd [2009] EWHC 2425 (TCC)
  • Kersfield Developments (Bridge Road) Ltd v Bray & Slaughter Ltd [2017] EWHC 15 (TCC)
  • Structure Consulting Ltd v Maroush Food Production Ltd [2017] EWHC 962 (TCC)
  • Willott Partnership Homes Ltd v Bethel Retirement Villages-Herne Bay Court Ltd (unreported), 10 April 2017, (TCC)

Please visit the Practical Law website to view the full video.


This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.


Please note that we do not give legal advice on individual cases which may relate to this content other than by way of formal instruction of a member of Gatehouse Chambers. However, if you have any other queries about this content please contact: