The High Court has ordered a Welsh council to pay Alun Griffiths £3.3m and dismissed its argument to defer payment as “spurious”.
In an earlier adjudication, Carmarthenshire County Council was found to have owed Alun Griffiths £3,316,487.55 in relation to the contractor’s work on the A48.
Carmarthenshire initially agreed to pay the sum if it was provided with a VAT invoice and a guarantee from Alun Griffiths’ parent company, Tarmac, that any money owed by the council would be paid.
However, the council later argued it should not be forced to pay the amount pending the outcome of a separate “actual value” adjudication it is seeking against Alun Griffiths.
Alun Griffiths took legal action to have the award enforced by summary judgment, but the council applied for a “stay of enforcement” to delay enforcement until it had started its own award proceedings .
The council argued that Alun Griffiths is insolvent and that a guarantee from Tarmac does not adequately protect it from future losses if a subsequent award goes in its favor as Tarmac is also “insolvent on the balance sheet”.
Evidence from Alun Griffiths, however, noted that Tarmac’s parent company, CRH, made an after-tax profit of £2.18 billion in 2022, with net assets of £18 billion and reserves of cash of 4.76 billion pounds. He said there was no clear commercial reason for CRH to withdraw financial support from Tarmac.
Ruling on the case, Mr Justice Pepperall said Tarmac’s guarantee “protects more than the council’s position” and that Carmarthenshire’s argument had “no merit”. He said the £3.3m award should be enforced, with Carmarthenshire paying the costs of the proceedings.
He added: “It was unreasonable [of the council] largely to promise payment in the event that he was provided with a VAT invoice and a correct calculation, only then to raise spurious objections to the collateral provided”.
A spokesman for Carmarthenshire County Council said: “The award relates to a ‘smash and grab’ award.
“The council is currently pursuing a genuine value claim in relation to the appropriate value of Alun Griffiths’ works. In the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to comment at this time.”
Alun Griffiths did not respond to a request for comment.
