Home   About us   About ADR   NADR Services   Publications
  Forms   Members   Forums   Links   NMA
• Adjudication
• Adjudication Federal Australia
• Adjudication Law Reports
• Adjudication Law Reports 1999
• Adjudication Law Reports 2000
• Adjudication Law Reports 2001
• Adjudication Law Reports 2002
• Adjudication Law Reports 2003
• Adjudication Law Reports 2004
• Adjudication Law Reports 2005
• Adjudication Law Reports 2006
• Adjudication Law Reports 2007
• Adjudication Law Reports 2008
• Adjudication Law Reports Index
• Adjudication New South Wales
• Adjudication New Zealand
• Adjudication Northern Territory
• Adjudication Queensland
• Adjudication Singapore
• Adjudication South Australia
• Adjudication Tasmania
• Adjudication Victoria
• Adjudication Western Australia
• ADR Law Reports
• ADR Law Reports 1997
• ADR Law Reports 1998
• ADR Law Reports 1999
• ADR Law Reports 2000
• ADR Law Reports 2001
• ADR Law Reports 2002
• ADR Law Reports 2003
• ADR Law Reports 2004
• ADR Law Reports 2005
• ADR Law Reports 2006
• ADR Law Reports 2007
• ADR Law Reports 2008
• ADR Law Reports Index
• Alernative Dispute Resolution
• Arbitration
• Arbitration Law Reports 1996
• Arbitration Law Reports 1997
• Arbitration Law Reports 1998
• Arbitration Law Reports 1999
• Arbitration Law Reports 2000
• Arbitration Law Reports 2001
• Arbitration Law Reports 2002
• Arbitration Law Reports 2003
• Arbitration Law Reports 2004
• Arbitration Law Reports 2005
• Arbitration Law Reports 2006
• Arbitration Law Reports 2007
• Arbitration Law Reports 2008
• Arbitration Law Reports Index
• Arbitration Older Reports
• Banking
• Commercial Law Reports 1997
• Commercial Law Reports 1998
• Commercial Law Reports 1999
• Commercial Law Reports 2000
• Commercial Law Reports 2001
• Commercial Law Reports 2002
• Commercial Law Reports 2003
• Commercial Law Reports 2004
• Commercial Law Reports 2005
• Commercial Law Reports 2006
• Commercial Law Reports 2007
• Commercial Law Reports 2008
• Commercial Law Reports Index
• Conflicts of Law
• Constitution Law Reports
• Constitutional Law
• Construction
• Construction Law Reports
• Construction Law Reports 2000
• Construction Law Reports 2001
• Construction Law Reports 2002
• Construction Law Reports 2003
• Construction Law Reports 2004
• Construction Law Reports 2005
• Construction Law Reports 2006
• Construction Law Reports 2007
• Construction Law Reports 2008
• Construction Law Reports Index
• Dispute Review Boards
• Education
• Employment
• Intellectual Property
• Legal Research
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Mediation
• Medical
• Private International Law
• Public International Law
• Public Law
• Shipping & Trade
• Sports Law
• Who's Who



View a printer friendly version of this page.
Aedas Architects Ltd v Skanska Construction UK Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 04/17
Application for summary decree in respect of outstanding stage payments : whether or not valid withholding notices had been issued was a triable issue, so summary decree refused. Outer House Court of Session. 17th April 2008
by Lord McEwan, Crown Copyright

Air Design (Kent) Ltd v Deerglen (Jersey) Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 12/10
Jurisdiction : stay on grounds of financial state of claimant. Mechanical Services contract on Intermediate terms. Whether three succeeding arrangments new contract (or in one case a mere letter of intent) or whether vairations of the original contract. Held : Whilst the adjudicator had no jurisdiction - express or imlied to rule on jurisdiction - the finding by him that the subsequent arrangements were variations and thus part of the contract which gave him jurisdiction were findings of mixed fact and law that, whether right or wrong could not be challenged on enforcement. His Honour also agreed that they were variations. Enforcement accordingly. TCC. 10th december 2008
by Mr Justice Akenhead. Crown Copyright

Allen Wilson Joinery Ltd v Privetgrange Construction Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 11/17
Written contract for purposes of HGCRA : Failed application for summary enforcement : No jurisdiction over dispute, or over award of interest. TCC. 17th November 2008.
by Mr Justice Akenhead. Crown Copyright

Avoncroft Construction Ltd v Sharba Homes (CN) Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 04/29
Set off : Stay pending 2nd decision : payment into court. The defendant resists the application for enforcement of an adjudicators decision on the ground that it is entitled to set off LADs against the sum awarded. Alternatively, the defendant seeks a stay of execution, or an order that the money be paid into court and not distributed until the outcome of a second adjudication. Birmingham District Registry, TCC. 29th April 2008.
by HHJ Frances Kirkham : Crown Copyright

Balfour Beatty Construction Northern Ltd v Modus Corovest (Blackpool) Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 12/04
Summary enforcement : stay to mediation - held : agreement to agree to mediation : Stay refused. Whether non compliance with 24PD.2 fatal to application for enforcement - held : technical not substantive failure - permission to amend granted. Whether a reasoned decision provided - Held YES. Whether a secondary defence considered : Held : YES. Whether there is a right to reply to response to defence : HEld : NO. Whether including the adjudication award in a subsequent valuation a waiver of right to enfoce : Held : No. Whether in the absence of a withholding notice payment is due for a certified claim : Held : YES. Whether a counterclaim for LADs could be set off against award : Held : No. Whether a claim for LADs was enforceable by summary judgment : Held : No. but a triable issue to be settled at a later date. 4th December 2008.
by Mr Justice Coulson. Crown Copyright

Benfield Construction Ltd v Trudson (Hatton) Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 09/17
Adjudication 1 & 2 dealt with the question whether or not practical completion had been achieved on a documentary and factual basis and if not liability for LADs. In adjudication 3 the contractor sought to establish that the consequence of partial possession was that practical completion had been achieved and thus the previously awarded LADs were not due. Held in enforcement proceedings regarding adjudication No3 that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction since it was essentially the same dispute as previously determined in adjudication No1. TCC. 17th September 2008
by Mr Justice Coulson. Crown Copyright

Birmingham City Council v Paddison Construction Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 09/25
Double jeopardy : 1st adjudication concerned an EOT, return of LADs and a claim for Loss and Expense arising out of the EOT. Points 1 and 2 successful : Issue here was whether adjudicator dealt with the Loss and Expense Claim and if not whether a 2nd adjudicator could deal with it. Held : 1st adjudicator held nothing due - it was an extravegant and exagerrated claim. The adjudicator had no right to indicate that the matter might be re-adjudicated. Any challenge had to be by arbitration or litigation. Accordingly 2nd adjudicator had no jurisdiction. TCC. Birmingham District Registry. 25th September 2008
by HHJ Frances Kirkham : Crown copyright

Brown (L) & Sons Ltd v Crosby Homes (North West) Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 04/23
S68(2)(g) AA 1996 – appeal out of time. s68(2)(g) AA 1996 application to serve appeal 66 days late against an arbitration award (No1) that overturned an adjudication decision. Assertion that documents disclosed in a subsequent arbitration (No2) would have resulted in a different result in No1. Held : Disclosure of the documents had not be ordered - and unlikely to change anything. Perjury allegations not sustainable. No good reason for the delay. TCC. 23rd April 2008
by Mr. Justice Akenhead : Crown Copyright

BSF Consulting Engineers Ltd v MacDonald Crosbie [2008] Adj.C.S. 04/14
Summary enforcement application : Claimant relied upon s15 Supply of Goods & Services Act 1982 to claim a reasonable charge for professional construction services : adjudicator found for claimant, but court held that in the absence of any written agreement as to scope of works or charges, arguably the adjudicator had no jurisdiction under s107 HGCRA. Accordingly leave granted to defend. RJT Consulting Engineers Ltd v DM Engineering [2002] applied. TCC. 14th April 2008.
by CHS : Summary : Judgment of HHJ David Wilcox.

Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 02/27
Jurisdiction : Natural justice. Challege to enforceability of adjudication decision in respect of extension of time : Which period of time should apply to th EOT and on what basis should damages be calculated. Defence resulted in adjudicator determining a different period to that initially claimed – this however did not deprive the adjudicator of jurisdiction and since it was a result of assertions by the defence was not a breach of the rules of natural justice. TCC. 27th February 2008
by Mr. Justice Akenhead. Crown Copyright

CJP Builders Ltd v William Verry Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 08/15
Late submission of defence : Does DOM/2 Clause 38A,5.1.2. (the respondent) “MAY ... send to the Adjudicator within 7 days of the date of a referral ... a written statement of the contentions on which he relies and any material he wishes the Adjudicator to consider”- establish a final date for submission of defence? Held : No. Furthermore, the adjudicator SHALL under 5.15 “… set his own procedure and at his absolute discretion may, take the initiative in ascertaining the facts and the law as he considers necessary.” The adjudicator had the power to extend time and breached the rules of natural justice by not doing so. Decision not enforceable. TCC. 15th August 2008
by Mr Justice Akenhead : Crown Copyright

CSC Braehead Leisure Ltd v Laing O\'Rourke Scotland Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 08/19
Electronic decision - email - Held : Valid decision : decision issued subject to a request for additional time to further consider granounds for revaluation downwards of a deduction from the award for LADs. Held : award final - though if both parties gave additional time & further submissions a different outcome might be reached. Whichever way defendant not prejudiced - he got the benefit of the doubt in all this. Adequacy of reasons : Whilst telegraphic award showed issues addresses and clear decision. Amendments to contract did not - could not - remove adjudicators inquisitorial role and replace it with an adversarial role - and procedures equivalent to a court. Outer House Court of Session. 19th August 2008.
by Lord Menzies. Crown Copyright

Cubitt Building & Interiors Ltd v Richardson Roofing (Industrial) Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 05/09
Cubitt seeks declaratory relief that its terms and conditions were incorporated into the sub-contract between the parties and injunctions that Richardson should be restrained from continuing with an arbitration and that adjudication should proceed before any further proceedings. Application refused.
Richardson seeks a declaration that the DOM/1 Sub-Contract Conditions were incorporated into the sub-contract and that Cubitt\'s application that the arbitration should be stayed pending adjudication should itself be stayed under S9 Arbitration Act 1996. Application granted. TCC. 9th May 2008.
by Mr Justice Akenhead. CrownCopyright

Curot Contracts Ltd (t/a Dimension Shop Fitting) v Castle Inns (Stirling) Ltd (t/a Castle Leisure Group) [2008] Adj.L.R. 12/16
Failed application for reduction of adjudicator\'s decision put out By Order before pronouncing any final interlocutor. Outer House Court of Session. 16th December 2008.
by Lord Glennie, Crown Copyright

Edenbooth Ltd v Cre8 Developments Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 03/13
Residence exception to HGCRA. Action to enforce adjudication decision: No defence available. Did the residential exception apply to a construction contract with a company where a director of the company occupied the premises? Initial reference in director’s name abandoned and fresh reference made in the name of company. Held : No. Further more, drainage and ground works for landscaping are construction works under the HGCRA. TCC. 13th March 2008
by Mr Justice Coulson. Crown Copyright

Enterprise Managed Services Ltd v East Midland Contracting Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 03/27
Strike out enforcement action. Application to strike out action to enforce an adjudication decision on the grounds that the contract stated that any litigation of disputes should be delayed till after final completion. On the facts that appliction failed. Manchester District Registry, TCC, 27th March 2008
by His Honour Judge Stephen Davies. Crown Copyright

Euro Construction Scaffolding Ltd v SLLB Construction Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 12/19
Whether the adjudicator was given jurisdiction to decide that he had jurisdiction and if not whether he did have jurisdiction. TCC. 19th December 2008
by Mr Justice Akenhead. Crown Copyright

Fleming Builders Ltd v. Forrest Or Hives [2008] Adj.L.R. 07/15
Written contract : Non-HGCRA domestic housebuild contract - scottish Form : Whether a contract : who contracted with who : whether adjudicator in breach of natural justice : whether non-HGCRA adjudication akin to arbitration and subject to different rules of judicial review to HCGRA adjudication : held : treatment the same. Outerhouse, Court of Session. 15th July 2008.
by Lord Menzies. Crown Copyright.

Gipping Construction Ltd v Eaves Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 12/11
Application for summary judgement enforcing adjudication decision. Defence conceeded, but questioned whether adjudicator should have had a site visit. Held : Since dispute determined on basis of defects to design faults not defective work, site visit not needed (though adjudicator is sole determinator of the process inanycase). Application for time to pay pursuant to CPR Part 40.11 declined but permission to apply for extension before 14 days elapses if parties unable to broker a settlement - evidence of reasons for extension required. As to indemnity costs, usual where no defence - but defendant successfully raised issues regarding additional appearances caused by delays in serving documents - resultant costs deducted. 12 hours preparation time to serve two documents excessive and trimed. TCC. 11th December 2008.
by Mr Justice Akenhead. Crown Copyright

Kier Regional Ltd (t/a Wallis) v City & General (Holborn) Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 10/17
Application by a judgment creditor for a third party debt order to enforce a judgment based on the enforcement of an adjudicators decision. TCC. 17th October 2008
by Mr Justice Coulson. Crown Copyright

Liberty Mercian Ltd v Dean & Dyball Construction Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 10/31
Application for preliminary declarations in support of adjudication : whether sectional completion schedule void for uncrertainty : whether liquidated damages provisions(LADs) amounted to a penalty; validity of EOT\'s. TCC. 31st October 2008
by Mr Justice Coulson. Crown Copyright

London Underground Ltd v Metronet Rail BCV Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 03/14
De nouvo trial : contract interpretation - was the adjudicator (Non HGCRA - PPI stepped dispute process) correct in determining that a particular interpretation, whilst ostensibly correct, led to an absurdity and should not be applied? Held : It did not lead to an absurdity and should therefore be applied. TCC. 14th March 2008.
by Mr Justice Ramsey : Crown Copyright

Makers UK Ltd v London Borough of Camden [2008] Adj.L.R. 07/25
Whether nomination valid : Contract on JCT Intermediate Form of Building Contract (1998 Edition) standard form. Dispute as to validity of termination or alternatively repudiation by Camden. Makers considered a legally qualified adjudicator desirable and having ascertained that a specific lawyer on the Riba panel was available, suggested / requested his appointment. Riba acceded. Was there a duty to consult with Camden or apparent bias in the appointment. Held : No. Adjudication summarily enforced. TCC. 25th July 2008
by Mr Justice Akenhead : Crown Copyright

Multiplex Construction Ltd v Cleveland Bridge Ltd No1 [2008] Adj.L.R. 02/06
Appeal against costs in previous actions before Jackson J. CA. 6th February 2008
by May LJ; Smith DBE LJ. Crown Copyright

Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd No2 [2008] Adj.L.R. 02/07
Application to amend. On going saga. TCC. 7th February 2008
by Mr Justice Jackson. Crown Copyright

Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd No3 [2008] Adj.L.R. 03/19
Application to amend proceedings. TCC. 19th March 2008
by Mr Justice Jackson. Crown Copyright

Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd No7 [2008] Adj.L.R. 09/29
Costs : Final element of the Wembly Stadium saga. TCC. 29th September 2008
by Mr Justice Jackson : Crown Copyright

Norwest Holst Ltd v Carfin Developments Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 09/18
Summary enforcement – stage payment ICE 5th.Application for summary enforcement of sum due under a certified stage payment under the ICE 5th ed standard form construction contract (groundworks), in the absence of withholding notice (in lieu of adjudication). Defendants applied for cist to arbitration : Held : No dispute to refer to arbitration. Sums due under the contract and the HGCRA s111. Outer House, Court of Session. 18th September 2008
by Lord Glennie : Crown Copyright

Reinwood Ltd v L Brown & Sons Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 02/20
Withholding provisions HGCRA. JCT clause 24 : Certificate of non completion issued together with notice : Certificate subsequently withdrawn but no replacement notice served. Did the original notice continue to be valid? Yes – in the circumstances since nothing to the contrary in the contract terms. House of Lords. 20th February 2008
by Lords Hope; Scott ; Walker ; Brown ; Neuberger : Crown Copyright

T & T Fabrications Ltd & T & T Fabrications (A firm) v Hubbard Architectural Metalwork Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 04/21
Assignment of rights of suit under a construction contract between T&T Fabrications (A Firm) and T&T Fabrications Ltd : dispute as to whether all terms of contract in writing as per s107 HGCRA & thus whether adjudicator had jurisdiction. Enforcement refused. Long standing dispute - small sum involved - suggests County Court would have been the best way to proceed. TCC. 21st April 2008
by Judge Wilcox : Crown Copyright.

Treasure & Son Ltd v Dawes [2008] Adj.L.R. 09/15
Payment by 3rd party. Judgment debt – summary enforcement of adjudicator’s decision. Is the debt discharge if paid by a third party - here a member of the debtor\'s family? Held : Yes. TCC. 15th September 2008
by Mr Justice Coulson: Crown Copyright

Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 04/02
Fire : Insurance : recovery of adjudication award. Successful appeal : sums paid out pursuant to an adjudication recoverable under terms of insurance policy. CA. 2nd April 2008
by MR, Rix LJ; Keene LJ. Crown Copyright

VGC Construction Ltd v Jackson Civil Engineering Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 08/15
Enforcement proceedings : Issues :- whether or not a) there was a sufficient dispute (if any) to be referred to adjudication; b) whether any claim giving rise to a possible dispute was withdrawn ; c) a new claim was raised in the adjudication outwith the adjudicators jurisdiction ; d) there has been a waiver of the right to challenge jurisdiction ; e) a claim for delay & disruption was so nebulous & ill-defined as to be unable to give rise to a dispute. Decision enforced. 15th August 2008
by Mr Justice Akenhead. Crown Copyright

Vitpol Building Service v Samen [2008] Adj.L.R. 09/16
Existence of building contract : Declaration : Domestic contract. Does the TCC have jurisdiction to decide a dispute as to the existence and/or terms of a contract, in circumstances where it is said that the court\'s decision will determine whether or not the claimant has the right to adjudicate, but where there is presently no adjudication (or even reference to adjudication), and there has instead been an almost completed pre-action protocol process? Answer : YES. Issue to proceed to trial. TCC. 16th September 2008
by Mr Justice Coulson. Crown Copyright

Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v DMW Developments Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 12/11
Post adjudication application for a declaration - dispute about whether sale and fix of timber by sample complied with contract terms - and whether supplier in breach when timber faded in colour. Court held : not suitable to determine issue of breach under a Part 7 application : Part 8 proceedings needed to settle matter. Limited declarations provided to facilitate future proceedings. 11th December 2008
by Mr Justice Coulson. Crown Copyright

Westwood Structural Services Ltd v Blyth Wood Park Management Company Ltd [2008] Adj.L.R. 12/09
Determination - whether all payments suspended on determination under JCT Minor Works Form, 1998 edition. Adjudicator found in adjudication No1 1) sum due prior to determination and 2) in adjudication No2 that clause 7.2.3. not therefore applicable : Decision enforceable under clause D7 1-3. Whether right or wrong, the court thought they were correct decisions regarding that form of contract, the decision was enforceable. 9th December 2008
by Mr Justice Coulson. Crown Copyright

Our publications are provided in PDF format, in order to view them you will need Adobe's free Acrobat reader. Acrobat reader can be downloaded from Adobe by following the link to your left.

Top of page

    Copyright © NADR 2000, all rights reserved.