黑洞社区

Hackney Empire has won back 拢1.6m following the successful conclusion of its long-running construction bond dispute with Aviva, with the judge highlighting the role Lord Sugar played in backing the East London theatre鈥檚 litigation.

Hackney Empire won its 10-year construction bond dispute with Aviva, with the insurer required to pay the 拢1.1m surety bond at the centre of the dispute.

Now the judge on the case has awarded the theatre nine years of interest on the bond, amounting to 拢500,000, which, when including the payment of the surety bond in full brings the total awarded to 拢1.6m.

Hackney Empire鈥檚 victory will come as a relief to the many contractors and clients that rely on bonds for security on projects.

The long-running case concerned Aviva鈥檚 refusal to pay up when the Hackney Empire鈥檚 contractor and project manager Sunley Turriff Construction (STC) went into administration in 2003 despite it having agreed a 拢1.1m bond with the contractor. STC was carrying out an 拢11m refurbishment on the Victorian theatre.

In the judgement this week, Justice Edwards-Stuart highlighted the role Lord Sugar played in backing Hackney Empire鈥檚 litigation, which put the theatre in a position to issue the claim against Aviva.

Clarie Middleton, Hackney Empire chief executive, said: 鈥淭he win against Aviva is of enormous significance to Hackney Empire and sets the seal on a new chapter in the organisation鈥檚 history.

鈥淚t has allowed us to clear balance sheet debt that has been hanging over the company since 2004.鈥�

Solicitors CMS Cameron McKenna acted for the theatre on a no-win, no-fee basis and QC David Thomas on a partial conditional fee.

Middleton thanked them for their 鈥渄etermined handling of the case鈥� and Lord Sugar 鈥渇or his consistent generous support鈥�.

Solicitor Rupert Choat said: 鈥淭his was a David-versus-Goliath battle but we had a giant of our own in the shape of Lord Sugar.鈥�

He said the case could only proceed because of no-win, no-fee, which new rules will prevent in future.

Aviva said it would not pursue any further appeals and confirmed it had already 鈥渟ettled the principal amount of this claim鈥�.