Challenge to Arbitrator's award under s 69(2)(b) of Arbitration Act 1996 on the basis that award was made in excess of jurisdiction. C also challenged the award of interest. Underlying contract had been for the construction of a dam in Lesotho and had provided for payment to contractors in Maloti. The value of Maloti had plummetted between the time when C should have made payment under the contract and the date of the Arbitrator's award and the Arbitrator awarded payment in the currency of the c ...
|
D had sought stay of enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision on basis that alternative Arbitration proceedings had been commenced and there were grounds to be concerned that C's financial position meant C would be unable to repay sum paid under Adjudicator's Decision if Arbitration required it. Judge refused to grant stay of execution following Adjudicator's award because D had failed to show that C was insolvent or that there were reaonable grounds to believe that C would be unable to repay sum i ...
|
Judge being asked to determine the meaning of "all direct costs and directly incurred losses" as it is used in a letter forming the basis of the contract between the parties. Comparison of this expression and the phrase "direct loss and/or expense" as used in the JCT forms of contract.
|
Applications by C under sections 33, 34, 67 and 68 of Arbitration Act 1996 in relation to Arbitration carried out under Water Industry Act 1991 to determine what, if any, loss had been suffered by C as a result of D's exercise of statutory functions. Claim was for loss of profit and loss of business. The Arbitrator determined that the loss of profit was £78,390 utilising a profit margin of 22%. C alleged that D's expert had conceded that the appropriate profit margin was 75% and challenged the A ...
|
C appealed against dismissal of its application under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to set aside an award by an engineer appointed under the ICE Conditions of Contract for want of jurisdiction. C claimed that no dispute had arisen and that the engineer had given it no opportunity to make submissions. Appeal dismissed: “dispute or difference” was to be interpreted inclusively and that, in the circumstances, including the imminent expiry of the limitation period, a dispute had arisen. ...
|
C appealed against refusal to grant a declaration that, due to D’s delay in giving notice of intention to refer a dispute to adjudication, the notice was an abuse of process. Appeal dismissed: concept of abuse of process was not extended under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to give an adjudicator the power to strike out or stay an adjudication for abuse of process. There was no time limit for reference to adjudication in the 1996 Act, therefore D’s notice should not ...
|
| 1 |