Rob Purton Richwood Interiors v Kilker Projects Limited [2015] EWHC 2624
Oral agreement for construction work; whether binding contract; intention to create legal relations
Facts
Mr Purton undertook some joinery work at the Dorchester Hotel for Kilker Projects Limited (KPL). KPL paid Mr Purton for certain preliminary works and joinery manufacture. When Mr Purton submitted his final bill for approximately £147,000, KPL failed to pay it. Mr Purton referred the matter for adjudication and the adjudicator ordered KPL to pay the full amount. Mr Purton made an application for summary judgement to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.
Issues
KPL denied the existence of a contract. They claimed there had been informal discussions regarding the works to be conducted but nothing had been firmly agreed between the parties, and there had been no intention to create legal relations. In the alternative, KPL contended no contract should be enforced by summary judgement unless all the terms were sufficiently certain when placed before the court. Mr Purton contended an oral contract had been made and substantial performance had taken place. He argued that KPL did not have reasonable prospects of defending the claim and he, therefore, was entitled to summary judgement.
Decision/Outcome
Mr Purton successfully obtained summary judgement. Whilst it was possible to have the performance of works without a legally binding contract, it was unrealistic to suggest there was no contract in this case. It was not necessary to identify each and every contract term with complete precision for the matter to be referred to an adjudicator. KPL had no realistic prospect of persuading a court that there was no contract in existence.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Rob Purton t/a Richwood Interiors v Kilker Projects Ltd [2015] EWHC 2624 (TCC), decided by Edwards-Stuart J in the Technology and Construction Court. The legal principles discussed — oral contracts in construction, intention to create legal relations, certainty of terms, and enforcement of adjudicators’ decisions by summary judgment — remain good law. The summary judgment threshold applied (no real prospect of success) continues to be governed by CPR r.24.2, which remains in force. The enforceability of adjudicators’ decisions through summary judgment is well-established practice confirmed in numerous subsequent TCC decisions. No statutory changes or later appellate authority have undermined the principles illustrated by this case. The article is accordingly still accurate for the purposes for which it is written, though readers should note it concerns a first-instance TCC decision of limited precedential weight and is best understood as an illustration of established principles rather than a leading authority in its own right.
