and receive only a partial recovery together with other unsecured creditors. In such circumstances the responding party would be deprived of the benefit it was intended to have through the mandatory set-off under the Insolvency Rules. The upshot of the Court of Appeal’s decision was that, save for exceptional circumstances, an adjudication by a company in liquidation would be liable to be stopped by the court as an exercise in futility where the other party has a cross-claim (i.e. because any adjudication decision would not be enforced). A recent decision of the TCC has now considered what exceptional circumstances might justify the enforcement of adjudication proceedings by a company in liquidation in such circumstances. Meadowside Building Developments Ltd (in Liquidation) v 12-18 Hill Street Management Company Ltd Meadowside was appointed by 12-18 Hill Street Management Company (“Hill”) to carry out repair works and practical completion was certified in March 2015. In July 2015, Meadowside was wound up voluntarily. Meadowside's liquidators had engaged Pythagoras Capital Limited as agent to seek to recover sums the liquidators claimed were due to Meadowside. Pythagoras's terms of engagement were undisclosed, save that it was to be paid a percentage of the amount recovered from Hill. Pythagoras sought to recover sums from Hill by way of adjudication. Despite resistance from Hill, the adjudicator heard the case and decided that £26,000 was due to Meadowside. Pythagoras then brought TCC proceedings to enforce the decision against Hill. Pythagoras offered a guarantee from itself as security for any costs incurred by Hill in resisting enforcement and/or successfully litigating to overturn the adjudicator's decision, including any adverse costs awarded against Meadowside.