HHJ Havery QC held that an adjudicator had no jurisdiction to reach his decision out of time, following his recent decision in Epping Electrical Company Ltd v Briggs & Forrester (Plumbing Services) Limited [2007] EWHC 4 (TCC). HHJ Havery QC also struck down the Government (GC/Works) adjudication rules which applied to the contract in the present case for the same reasons he struck down the CIC Rules in Epping: namely, because those rules permitted an adjudicator to reach his decision out of tim ...
|
D (the Employer) and C (the Contractor) had been a party to adjudication no. 1 in which C had argued that the contractual liquidated damages provisions were inoperable because the scope and value of the works in each sectional completion could not be ascertained. The adjudicator found against C. Following a second adjudication, which was compromised, C commenced adjudication no 3 in which it sought repayment of monies deducted as liquidated damages. D refused to take part in the adjudication ...
|
The Court of Appeal held that a judge had erred in awarding summary judgment enforcing an adjudicator’s decision, as there was a real prospect of establishing that the adjudicator acted without jurisdiction. The adjudication concerned a dispute over fees. It was held that the judge had erred in failing to consider (1) an oral agreement between the parties in relation to a cap on C’s fees; and (2) a deed of appointment between the parties that contained an express term that the Technical and Co ...
|
C applied for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s award. The parties had both agreed to the adjudicator’s request for an extension of time for reaching the decision of 7 days. The adjudicator reached his decision within the 7 day extension, but refused to send the decision to the parties until he had been paid. His decision was finally released 2 days after expiry of the extension of time. It was held that D’s consent to the extension of time had been conditional on the decision bei ...
|
Judge Wilcox refused to enforce an adjudicator’s award on grounds that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction because the letter of intent issued by D to C did not create a contract and therefore did not comply with s. 107 of the Construction Act 1996. The critical factor in the decision was that the letter of intent was headed “subject to contract”. In any event, it was found that the letter of intent could not have constituted a contract because the letter did not contain all the express terms ...
|
A complex construction claim was struck out as an abuse of process because it related to alleged breaches of warranty that the defendants, professional firms, had already settled in respect of cross-claims brought against them by a defendant to earlier proceedings brought by the same claimant. A retailer had designed and constructed a large retail development on land leased by the claimant. The three defendants were engaged to provide professional services on that project. Subsequent settleme ...
|
C applied for equitable remedies and summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision against D. D had been employed by C, the main contractor, as structural engineer on the construction of Wembley Stadium. The adjudication concerned C’s attempt to exercise its right to access “pertinent records” held by D under a novation agreement which governed C’s relationship with D. The adjudicator allowed C access to the requested documents, but D offered only a restricted range of documents. D c ...
|
This appeal concerned the status of a joint expert statement used in mediation. C issued proceedings in professional negligence against D, an architect. Proceedings were stayed for mediation. The Judge ordered the parties to instruct experts to prepare a joint statement for the mediation. The experts removed from the final version of the joint statement a proviso that the statement was without prejudice. The mediation failed, and D sought to use the joint statement in the subsequent proceed ...
|
The Court enforced an adjudicator’s decision notwithstanding (a) the referral notice was served one day late and (b) the adjudicator communicated his decision 12 hours after expiry of the time available for reaching the decision. Judge Coulson emphasized the importance of compliance with adjudication timetables because “the essence of adjudication is speed”; but on a “sensible and commercial” construction of the relevant clause of the contract between the parties found that the referral notice ...
|
This appeal overturned the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision. C had employed D to carry out renovations to a mansion. Completion of the works was delayed; D made two unsuccessful applications by letter to the architect for an extension of time. D referred the dispute to adjudication. The adjudicator found that D had failed to establish entitlement to an extension of time on the basis of those letters. C subsequently commenced a second adjudication for liquidated and ascertained damag ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |