Source: http://www.nadr.co.uk/links/links.php?category=32
Timestamp: 2013-06-19 09:44:18
Document Index: 298662461

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'art 40', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'art. 14', 'UKHL ', 'application No11', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'art 7', 'art 8', 'Case No: 6']

1 NADR Adjudication Case Data Base by Date
READERS ARE INVITED TO FORWARD RECENT CASES TO NADR FOR POSTING UP. Cases listed in reverse date order starting with the most recent. Last updated 21st December 2008.
There are 422 cases in this data base.
2 NADR Adjudication Case Index
Data Base of UK Construction Adjudication Cases by topic. Last updated 21st December 2008.
3 NADR Adjudication Law Reports
Adjudication Law Reports : Adj.L.R. pdf judgments of all available cases in NADR house style.
4 Vinden Partnership
Lists principal cases, header note, summaries and transcripts.
5 Adjudication Society
Adjudication.Org. Summaries & pdf transcrips of most UK, Australian and New-Zealand cases : Access to transcripts and articles by subscription.
6 Adjudication.co.uk
Provides short summaries and or transcripts of most of the UK cases either in HTML or pdf. Adjudication ANB.
7 Scottish-Arbitrators
Scottish Branch CIAb - links to Scottish Adjudication Cases and relevant materials.
8: DAQS Construction Consultants
Seachable electronic hyper-linked construction adjudication data base of articles, cases and legislation available on other web-sites. Provided by Pickavance. Users need to register for username and password. The service is free.
A De Gruchy Holdings Ltd v House of Fraser Ltd [2001] Lawtel AC 0101484
Evidence : Letters of intent : quantum meruit evaluation of management claim : Held : Information available at an adjudication provided evidence of availability of information upon which the claim could be substantiated. TCC. HHJ David Wilcox. 22nd May 2001.
A v. B [2002] ScotCS 325
Enforcement of decision	: Contract terms cannot exclude HGCRA adjudication or enforcement ? but challenges to decisions may be deferred to end of project. Outer House C.S. Lord Drummond Young. 17th December	A&D Maintenance v Pagehurst [1999] 64 Con LR
Enforcement of decision	: Adjudicator?s jurisdiction survives termination of contract : Judicial review available but not appeal or examination of merits.TCC. HHJ.David Wilcox. 23rd June 1999.
A&S Enterprises v Kema [2004] QBD HT 04 199
Bias : Adjudicator made adverse comments about non availability of a representative at a hearing. Held : This amounts to bias. A mere observation of non-availability of evidence would have sufficed. Decision not-enforced. HHJ Seymour. 27 July 2004.
A.R.T. Consultancy Ltd v Navera Trading Ltd [2007] EWHC 1375 (TCC)
The parties concluded a JCT Minor Works Contract and a separate oral contract for design works. Disputes arose under both contracts that were submitted to adjudication. The adjudication declined jurisdiction regarding the design disputes and made an award for payment in respect of the works contract. Enforcement was resisted on the grounds that the contract was not sufficiently in writing for HGCRA purposes. The court found that the JCT contract was entirely in writing and there was no evidence of additional written terms. Application for stay on basis of financil vulnerability declined. HHJ Peter Coulson QC : 31st May 2007
ABB Power Construction Ltd v Norwest Holst Engineering Ltd [2000] EWHC TCC 68
Jurisdiction : Threshhold: Power station; exclusion under s105(2)(c)&(d); in furtherance of power station operations. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. 1st August, 2000 ABB Zantingh Ltd v Zedal Building Services Ltd [2000] EWHC TCC 40
Jurisdiction : Threshhold : Work on standby generators not within exclusion under s105(2)(c)&(d); business furthered was printing not power generation. HGCRA applied. HHJ Bowsher. 12th December 2000
Declaration : Declaration sought that a labour only contract could be terminated at will and the work retendered to a third party : Held : Such terms are lawful but clear words needed. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. 4th July 2003.
Absolute Rentals v Gencor [2000] CILL 1637
Enforcement of decision	: Adjudicator?s jurisdiction not ousted by arbitration clause : HGCRA overrides s9 Arbitration Act 1996 & Halki Shipping. HHJ David Wilcox. 16th July 2000.
AC Plastic Industries Ltd v Active Fire Protection Ltd [2002] All ER (D) 61 (Aug)
Stay of enforcement : Application for enforcement : Defendant issued proceedings for final determination and sought a stay of enforcement pending outcome of trial. Enforcement granted : No justification provided to stay enforcement. Judge Richard Seymour QC. TCC. 16th August 2002.
AC Yule & Son Ltd v Speedwell Roofing & Cladding Ltd [2007] EWHC 1360 (TCC)
The court was called upon here to determine whether or not an adjudicator�s decision was reached within the HGRCA timeframe and extensions of time granted by the applicant and or agreed by the parties. There was a statutory extension � together with a request for 2 additional days in response to late submissions by both parties of additional considerations. One party asked � the other acquiesced by conduct and continuing participation and submission. This amounted to implied / express consent to the final extention of time. The decision was delivered in time and was enforceable. In addition, the respondent was estopped by conduct from denying the extension. Peter Coulson QC: 31st May 2007 Adonis Construction Ltd v Mitchells and Butler [2003] Adjudication SocDec 2003
Application for Declaration : Kirkham J considered an application for declaration that the adjudicator had jurisdiction under a construction contract. Needs speed but effective.
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. Opinion of Lord McEwan, Outer House Court of Session. 17th April 2008.
Air Design (Kent) Ltd v Deerglen (Jersey) Ltd [2008] EWHC 3047 (TCC)
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. Mr Justice Akenhead. 10th december 2008
Ale Heavylift v MSD (Darlington) Ltd [2006] EWHC 2080 (TCC)
Jurisdiction : Written contract and unwritten contract variations : contract interpretation: Set off for subsequent events: fairness and natural justice: withholding notice procedure : financial insecurity of applicant. All aspects of challenge rejected - enforcement ordered. Jurisdiction challenge not raised in adjudication : Waiver - too late to raise at this stage. HHJ Toulmin. TCC. 31st July 2006.
All In One Building & Refurbishments Ltd v Makers UK Ltd [2005] EWHC 2943 (TCC)
Dispute - meaning of. Due Process. Solvency. A dispute as to breach can precede due date of payment. Once an adjudicator is in a position to answer a question there is no breach of due process if he does not dig deeper into an issue. The financial status of the claimant management company had not altered in any significant way from when it was first hired - so no reason to stay enforcement.TCC. HHJ David Wilcox. 19th December 2005
Allen Wilson Joinery Ltd v Privetgrange Construction Ltd [2008] EWHC 2802 (TCC)
Written contract for purposes of HGCRA : Failed application for summary enforcement : No jurisdiction over dispute, or over award of interest. Mr Justice Akenhead. 17th November 2008.
Allen Wilson Shopfitters v Buckingham [2005] EWHC 1165 (TCC)
Owner Occupier : Jurisdiction on jurisdiction for non-HGCRA adjudication : impact of UTCCR 1999. Peter Coulson J : 27th May 2005.
Allied London v Riverbrae Construction [1999] Scot.Cs 170
Set off for other claims : Defendant sought to set off adjudicator?s order for payment against alleged liability for breach of other contracts. Not allowed. Outer House C.S. Lord Kingarth. 12th July 1999.
Alstom Signalling Ltd. v Jarvis Facilities Ltd [2004] EWHC 1232 (TCC)
Application for a declaration that the contract contained a "pain and gain" provision : or alternatively that the price to be paid to the Defendants for the work done take into account a share by the Defendants of the "pain" suffered by the Claimants under a contract between the Claimants and Railtrack. Application refused and invitation to submit a fresh application based on findings of the court. His Honour Deputy Judge Colin Reese QC. 11th May 2004.
Alstom Signalling Ltd. v Jarvis Facilities Ltd [2004] EWHC 1285 (TCC)
Witholding Notice : Amount Due : IChemE Gain & Pain main & sub contracts : Enforcement of adjudicators? decisions refused ? in the circumstances of the case the issue of a withholding notice was irrelevant to the determination of the sum due. HHJ Humphrey LLoyd QC. 28th May 2004.
Amber Construction Services Ltd v London Interspace HG Ltd [2007] EWHC 3042 (TCC)
Costs � defence withdrawn at last moment. Whether only fixed costs should be payable if the defendant to an issued claim admits or pays the sum claimed within a few days of the issue on or before the Acknowledgement of Service. Court allowed substantial costs since the defendant had forced the claimant to prepare to deal with allegations of absence of jurisdiction of the adjudicator. Mr Justice Akenhead. TCC. 18th December 2007
Amec Capital Project Ltd v White Friars City Estate Ltd [2003] EWHC 2443
Jurisdiction : Bias : Adjudication 1 failed ? wrong adjudicator : Adjudication 2 failed ? failure to disclose legal advice received by adjudicator. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. 19th September 2003.
Appeal to C.A. Death of named adjudicator before appointment means resort to alternative mechanisms for appointment valid. Kennedy LJ; Chadwick LJ; Dyson LJ.28 October 2004.
Jurisdiction : Bias : No2 : HHJ Toulmin J : 27th February 2004.
Amec Capital Projects Ltd. v Whitefriars City Estates Ltd. [2004] EWCA Civ 1535
Double jeopardy : Clause 9(2) of the Scheme prevents contradictory decisions by 2 separate adjudicators : It does not apply where the first adjudicator's decision has been held to be a nullity. Chadwick LJ; Dyson LJ. 28th October 2004
Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2004] EWHC 2339 (TCC)
Unsuccessful challenge to an arbitrator's interim award on jurisdiction The Honourable Mr Justice Jackson. 11th October 2004.
Challenge to an arbitrator's interim award on jurisdictions failed : Appeal to CA dismissed. May LJ; Rix LJ; Hooper LJ : 17th March 2005.
Andrew Wallace Ltd v Artisan Regeneration Ltd [2006] EWHC 15 (TCC)
Legal Personality : Illegality : Defendant resisted enforcement of adjudicator's decision. 1) Questioned content of contract : 2) Contracted with individual - not company - and Company Mis-named 3) Illegal conduct of claimant re TAX, VAT, Register of Business name & fabrication of documents - illegal conduct of claim together invalidated the decision. Held : No reasonable prospect of defence prevailing. HHJ Frances Kirkham. 10th January 2006.
Ardmore Construction Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd [2006] SCHOS3
Bias : Natural Justice : Dispute regarding liability for and extent of over-time payments arising out of alleged acceleration order. Adjudicator limited scope of an order to 2 sectors but then found that the order was either verbally extended or the extension was acquiesced to. Verbal instructions and acquiescence were not addressed during the adjudication process. Held : Breach of Natural Justice : Lord Clarke. Outer House, Court of Session. 12th January 2006.
Ashley House v Galliers Southern Ltd [2002] EWHC 274 (TCC)
Stay of Execution ordered but due to parlous state of claimant, payment into court ordered pending outcome of court case ? see also Rainford. HHJ Seymour. 15th February 2002.	Atlas Ceiling v Crowngate [2000] CILL 1639
Jurisdiction : Threshhold : The works commenced before HGCRA came into force, but since the contract was only finally agreed later, the Act applied. HHJ Thornton. 18th February 2000.
Austin Hall Building Ltd v. Buckland Securities Ltd [2001] EWHC TCC 434
Human Rights : ECHR does not apply to adjudication so public hearing not required : availability of JR protects parties : HGCRA time scale not unfair. HHJ Bowsher ; 11th April 2001.
Aveat Heating Ltd v Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd [2007] EWHC 131 (TCC)
Notice : s108 Compliance : Held : A contractual requirement that the 28 day time limit runs from receipt of referral is compliant. Cl 38A5 JC Works /SC provided that a decision would be valid even if delivered after 28 days or agreed time : following Epping non-compliant : scheme applies. Time runs from receipt under the Scheme (Ritchie disapproved). Decision sent on due date valid even if after hours. Dispute in notice and referral the same - decision enforced except for costs - not allowed under Scheme - only under invalid GC Works reference. Richard Havery QC. TCC. 1st February 2007.
Avoncroft Construction Ltd v Sharba Homes (CN) Ltd [2008] EWHC 933 (TCC)
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. HHJ Frances Kirkham. Birmingham District Registry. 29th April 2008.
AWG Construction Services Ltd v Rockingham Motor Speedway Ltd [2004] EWCH 888
Jurisdiction Internal	: Claim grew incrementally as adjudication progressed : 3 separate claims submitted : Held : 1 decision enforceable ? others unenforceable ? wrong grounds for decision. HHJ Toulmin. 5th April 2004.
AWG Group Ltd v Morrison [2005] EWHC 2786 (Ch)
Conflict of interest : Bias : (General principles - non-adjudication case) : Trial judge declined to recuse himself because he knew a potential witness who had not been called. Since alternative witnesses had been called, there was no problems. The costs of the trial and undesirability of postponing a trial where the judge was already primed outweighted concerns which had ceased to be relevant. Mr. Justice Evans-Lombe. Chancery Division. 1st December 2005.
Baker & Davies Plc v Leslie Wilks Associates [2005] EWHC 1179 (TCC)
Contribution : Payment of a sum pursuant to a HGCRA adjudication decision satisfies the requirements of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 viz a payment to an injured party and gives rise to a right to receive a contribution. HHJ Richard Havery. 30th June 2005
BAL (1996) Ltd. v Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd [2004] 1 BLISS 7
Natural Justice	: Adjudicator asked parties for permission to take legal advice. Claimant agreed, defendant did not reply. Adjudicator made a decision without disclosing advice to parties. HHJ David Wilcox. 23rd January 2004.
Baldwins Industrial Services Plc v Barr Ltd. [2002] EWHC 2915 (TCC)
Receivership: Jurisdiction : Supply of plant & operator covered by HGCRA : Claimant in receivership so payment into court ordered : see also Hershel / Rainford. HHJ Frances Kirkham. 6th December 2002.	Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd v London Borough of Lambeth [2002] EWHC 597 (TCC)
Misconduct Stay granted	: Adjudicator produced a critical path analysis, establishing a right to extension of time : defendant not consulted on analysis ? unfair ? no enforcement. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. 12th April 2002.
Balfour Beatty Construction Northern Ltd v Modus Corovest (Blackpool) Ltd [2008] EWHC 3029 (TCC) 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. Mr Justice Coulson. 4th December 2008.
Set off from adjudicator's decision. Where the sum the defendant seeks to set off against the adjudicator's decision is not yet ascertained at the time of the decision, no set off is allowed unless the contract expressly provides otherwise. Jackson J. 21st December 2004. Balfour Beatty Ltd v Gilcomston North Ltd [2006] ScotCS CSOH_81
Insurance : Contractor held liable to employer : Whether contractor should recover against sub-contract - and or whether adjudicated sum recoverable from underwriters under insurance policy. Lord Uist. Outerhouse Court of Session. 23rd May 2006
Balfour Kilpatrick v Glauser International SA [2000] Adj.Soc
Notice of Dispute : Jurisdiction : An adjudicator can consider several issues (claims) relating to a dispute ? but cannot consider more than one dispute. HHJ Gilliland. TCC Salford. 27th July 2000.	Ballast Plc v The Burrell Company Ltd [2002] ScotCS 324
Misconduct : Quashed : Adjudicator failed to decide the issues; asserted questions invalid; decision quashed. Extra Div. Inner House C.S. Lord Johnston, Lord President, Lord Weir. 17th December 2002.
Ballast Plc v The Burrell Company Ltd [2001] ScotCS 159
Misconduct : Decision Quashed : Adjudicator failed to decide the issues ? asserted questions invalid ? decision quashed. Outer House CS. Lord Reed. 21st June 2001.
Baris Ltd v Kajima Construction Europe (UK) Ltd. [2006] EWHC 31 (TCC)
Interest on late payment of decision. Held : In the circumstances of the case a follow up demand for payment of the sum in final settlement, without prejudice to costs, which was complied with amounted to an accord and satisfaction. Accordingly no interest was due. Peter Coulson HHJ. TCC. 20th January 2006.
Barnes & Elliot Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Holdings Ltd [2003] 3100 (TCC)
Late Adjudicator\'s Decision : Decision 2 days late : whilst it is advisable to get an agreement for an extension of time ? 2 days is excusable ? decision enforceable. HHJ LLoyd QC 20 June 2003.
Barr Ltd v Law Mining Ltd [2001] ScotCS 152
Dispute: Dissection : A single dispute can have several parts : court can uphold valid decisions and order stay ultra vires part. Compare Sherwood:KNS:Farebrother. Outer House.CS. Lord MacFadyen. 15th June 2001.
Bath & North East Somerset D.C. v Mowlem Plc [2004] EWCA Civ 115
Adjudication an alternative to court, not exclusive : Appeal against injunction : Council injuncted Mowlem against preventing entry of contractors to perform remedial works : Appeal ? should Bath Council have gone to Adjudication? Held : No - it might have been quicker but a different result was not necessarily assured and the court injunction was a proper remedy to seek. Brooke LJ, Mance LJ, Park LJ. 20th February 2004.
Baune v Zduc Ltd [2002] All ER (D) 55
Jurisdiction : Bias : Adjudicator sought advice from a QS. Held - allowed to do so : He awarded damages for breach of contract and determined the sum due - as requested - on final account. Held : No application for damages in referral - excess of jurisdiction. No enforcement. HHJ Seymour QC, TCC. 14 August 2002
Beaufort Developments (NI) Ltd v. Gilbert-Ash NI Ltd [1998] UKHL 19
Pre HGCRA : Jurisdiction to open up and amend certificates available to judges. Northern Regional Health Authority v. Derek Crouch Construction Co. Ltd. [1984] Q.B. 644 wrongly decided and overruled. But where stated to be final arbitrators and adjudicators (see power in HGCRA and Scheme) need express power to open and revise.	Lords Goff; Lloyd; Nolan; Hoffmann; Hope. House of Lords. 20th May 1998.
Beck Peppiatt Ltd. v Norwest Holst Construction Ltd. [2003] EWHC 822 (TCC)
Meaning of a Dispute : Application for stay of adjudication on basis of no dispute: refused because the applicant had had 2 ? weeks pre notice to respond. Mr Justice Forbes. 20th March 2003.
Belgrave v Vaughan [2005] Lawtel AC0109292
Insolvency : Enforcement of adjudication decision : Defendant a bankrupt at time of contract - conducted in name of X and funded by Defendant\'s partner: enforcement against funding partner not possible - not a partnership and even if so not a party to the adjudication. Recorder David Blunt. Portsmouth County Court. 30th June 2005
Benfield Construction Ltd v Trudson (Hatton) Ltd [2008] EWHC 2333 (TCC)
Double jeopardy : issue estoppel : 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 No3 that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction : issue estoppel. Mr Justice Coulson. 17th September 2008.
Bennett (Electrical) Services Limited v Inviron Limited [2007] EWHC 49 (QB)
Jurisdiction : Letter of intent, "Subject to Contract", provided for remuneration on the basis of "reasonable and substantiated direct costs of complying with this instruction" in the event that no contract is subsequently concluded. Held : An agreement based on "request and restitution" is not a contract. Also, oral agreements regarding "working hours, mechanisms of payment, variations, insurance and health and safety" were key provision which if not written precluded HGCRA adjudication. Adjudicator had no jurisdiction. Decision non enforceable. Wilcox J : TCC. 19th January 2007.
Bennett v FMK Construction Ltd. [2005] EWHC 1268 (TCC)
Late appointment & JCT 1998. First adjudication abandoned. Case remitted to the same adjudicator after expiry of 28 days of issue of final certificate. Did the FC become conclusive evidence of matters referred to in it? YES. Havery J : 30th June 2005
Bickerton Construction Ltd v Temple Windows Ltd [2001] BM 1500 27
Fairness : Adjudicator decided upon damages without first settling a dispute on sum due under contract : defendant denied right of reply: unfair.	HHJ Frances Kirkham. 26th June 2001.
Birmingham City Council v Paddison Construction Ltd [2008] EWHC 2254 (TCC)
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. HHJ Frances Kirkham. Birmingham Registry. 25th September 2008.
Birse Construction Ltd v HLC Engenharia Sa [2006] EWHC 1258 (TCC)
Discoveries to facilitate challenge to an adjudicator\'s decision. Application for pre-action disclosures whilst unusual, acceded to in part. Applicant was out of the loop in respect of matters that concerned on going obligations and information could facilitate settlement and determine issues in respect of lawfulness of determination of contract. Mr Justice Jackson. TCC. 2nd May 2006
Bloor Construction (UK) Ltd v Bowmer & Kirkland (London) Ltd [2000] BLR 314
Slip rule applies to adjudication ? adjudicator can correct mere mistakes in decision to reflect original intention. HHJ Toulmin. 5th April 2000.
Bothma (t/a DAB Builders) v Mayhaven Healthcare Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 527
Jurisdiction : Two points of claim adjudicated without consent contrary to Cluase 8(1) of Scheme : An application to appeal a refusal to enforce failed. During the paper submission the court indicated that it would not support an assertion that a failure to raise this point on jurisdiction during the adjudication resulted in estoppel or waiver. During the hearing an attempt to find a link between the two points on a technicality failed. Dyson LJ; Waller LJ. 14th May 2007
Bothma (t/a DAB Builders) v Mayhaven Healthcare Ltd [2006] EWHC B2 (TCC)
Scheme adjudication : Court found on facts that multiple disputes referred without consent to jurisdiction. A general objection to jurisdiction is sufficient to override assertions of waiver - a party can successfully resist enforcement on new jurisdictional grounds not put to the adjudicator. Havelock-Allan QC. 16th November 2006
Bouygues UK Ltd v Dahl-Jensen UK Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 507
Mistakes enforceable : Even if a decision is wrong it is still enforceable in the absence of wrong doing by adjudicator. Peter Gibson LJ, Chadwick LJ, Buxton LJ. 31st July 2000.
Bouygues UK Ltd v Dahl-Jensen UK Ltd [1999] EWHC TCC 182
Mistakes enforceable : Even if a decision is wrong it is still enforceable in the absence of wrong doing by adjudicator. HHJ Dyson; 17th December 1999.	Bovis Lend Lease Ltd v Triangle Development Ltd [2003] BLR 31
Set off	: Set off is not allowed against undertermined claims but is available against liquid debts and concurrent judgements. HHJ Thornton 2nd November 2002.
Bracken v Billinghurst [2003] EWHC 1333 (TCC)
Settlement agreement : An attempt to enforce two adjudication decisions failed because the claimant had cashed a cheque issued in final settlement of the claims. HHJ David Wilcox. 10th June 2003.
Branlow Ltd v Dem-Master Demolition Ltd [2004] ScotSC A904/03
Written Contract for s107 : Court held two letters containing essence of contract, albeit lacking detail, sufficient to amount to a construction contract for HGCRA adjudication. Sherrifdom of Lothian & Borders at Linlithgow 26th February 2004	Brenton A.J. v Palmer [2001] TCC 00/436
Jurisdiction Internal : Adjudicator asked to decide whether Palmer or his company was party to a contract then decide entitlement. Enforceable. HHJ. Richard Havery : 19th January 2001.
Brian Andrews v Bradshaw [1999] EWCA Civ 2008
Bias : Arbitrator : Did an impatient exchange between arbitrator and respondent raise a real possibility of bias? Not in the circumstances.Nourse LJ, Mantell LJ, Mance LJ. 29th July 1999.
Bridgeway Construction Ltd v Tolent Construction Ltd [2000] CILL 1662
Can a contract put the legal and adjudication costs on the referring party? HHJ Mackay. TCC. 11th April 2000.	Britcon (Scunthorpe) v Lincolnfields [2001] HT 01/259
Impropriety :	Had an adjudicator considered all the issues? Yes : Decision enforceable. HHJ Thornton. TCC. 29th August 2001.
Stay of adjudication : Application for Judicial Review. BWB asserted that negotiations had not yet ended so no dispute yet. Held 5 months of inconclusive negotiations amounts to a dispute.Outer House C.S. Lord McCluskey. 5th July 2001.
Brown (L) & Sons Ltd v Crosby Homes (North West) Ltd [2008] EWHC 817 (TCC)
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 - an unlikely to change anything. Perjury allegations not sustainable. No good reason for the delay. Mr Justice Akenhead. 23rd April 2008.
Brown (L) & Sons v Crosby North West Homes [2005] EWHC 3503 (TCC)
Jurisdiction : Contract in CD 98 standard form. Article 5 - right to refer disputes under the contract Article 39(A)(1) as amended to cover disputes arising under, out of or in connection with the contract. Did this cover bonus payments and waiver provisions regarding LADs in side agreements which had no dispute provisions? Held : Yes : Decision enforceable. Mr Justice Ramsay. 5th December 2005.
Bryen & Langley Ltd v Boston [2005] EWCA Civ 973
Jurisdiction - domestic occupier construction contract: Successful appeal on dismissal of enforcement of adjudicator's decision and on costs. All principal terms were agreed - on JCT standard form terms - including adjudication. Outstanding issues merely in the nature of variations. No breach of UTCCR 1999. Clarke LJ; Pill LJ; Mr Justice Rimer. 29th July 2005.
Bryen & Langley v Boston [2004] EWHC 2450 TCC
Jurisdiction : Domestic Contract : Adjudicator invited to consider his jurisdiction : enforcement action : court held decisions on jurisdiction fall to be finally determined by the court unlike other decisions which will require a final determination by litigation or arbitration. Whilst parties had intended to contract on JCT terms, work commenced but they never signed the constract. That being so the adjudicator had no jurisdiction. HHJ Richard Seymour. 4th November 2004.
BSF Consulting Engineers Ltd v MacDonald Crosbie [2008] All ER (D) 171 (Apr)
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. HHJ David Wilcox. 14th April 2008.
Buxton Building Contractors Ltd v Governors of Durand Primary School [2004] EWHC 733
Due Process : Witholding Notice : Release of retension : Notices : Failure to address set off claims : decision unenforceable ? trial not set down pending negotiations. QBD. HHJ Thornton Q.C. 12th March 2004.
C & B Scene Concept Design Ltd v Isobars Ltd [2002] BLR 93
Application for enforcement of adjudicator\'s decision refused.Mr Recorder Moxon-Browne QC : TCC. 21st June 2001
C & B Scene Concept Design Ltd v Isobars Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 46
Error of Law : Adjudicator answered right question incorrectly : applied cl 30.5 JCT not Scheme : Appeal upheld ? adjudicator?s decision enforceable.Potter LJ, Rix LJ, Murray Stuart-Smith LJ. 31st January 2002.
Canary Riverside Development v Timtec International [2000] R.Ct .J. 69/2000
Insolvency :Impact on jurisdiction to Adjudicate : Where a defendant is in administration it is unlikely under s11 Insolvency Act that permission will be granted for an adjudication. Royal Courts of Justice. London. Deputy Judge DKR Oliver. 9th November 2000.
Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd [2008] EWHC 282 (TCC)
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. Mr Justice Akenhead. 27th February 2008
Cape Durasteel Ltd v Rosser & Russell Building Services Ltd [1995] Lawtel AC0300143
Stay : An agreement to adjudicate is similar to and should be treated in the same way as an agreement to arbitrate. Contractual adjudication agreement - predating HGCRA. QBD : HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. 4th August 1995.
Capital Structures Plc v Time & Tide Construction Ltd [2006] EWHC 591 (TCC)
Jurisdiction : Settlement agreement of a construction dispute stated to be subject to adjudication : Respondent resisted adjudication and enforcement on the grounds that settlement induced by economic duress. Held : No jurisdiction where contract avoided : Duress cannot be the subject matter of an adjudication - no jurisdiction. HHJ David Wilcox. 8th March 2006
Jurisdiction : Threshold. Declaration successfully sought that the contract was a development agreement within the meaning of the Construction Contracts Exclusion Order 1998, Statutory Instrument 1998 No. 648 (the Exclusion Order). and thereby excluded from HGCRA adjudication. Consequently the appointment was an adjudicator to a dispute arising out of the contract was invalid. TCC. Wilcox. HHJ. 11th November 2005
Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd [2003] BLR 79
Meaning of Dispute : Claimant gave notice before defendant had had a chance to consider and respond to the claim : Dispute not yet crystalized. HHJ Bowsher. TCC. 27th November 2002.
Interest : Jurisdiction : CA Held that there is no inherent power under the Scheme for an adjudicator to award interest. The power to do so must be granted by the parties or be inherently within the scope of the reference. Appeal dismissed - the parties had consented. L.J.Chadwick MR and L.J.Moore-Bick. 16th November 2005.
Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd. [2005] EWHC 778
Interest : In the absence of provisions in the contract clause 20(c)of the Scheme provides a freestanding right to interest. An adjudicator has the right to decide (prefereably with reasons) whether or not evidence is relevant and therefore whether or not to expend further time and energy on it. Mr Justice Jackson. 26th April 2005.
Carter (R.G) Ltd v Edmund Nuttall [2002] BLR 312
Jurisdiction Internal : Meaning of Dispute : Can an adjudicator deal with additional matters not contained in the notice of adjudication? HHJ Thornton. TCC. 21st June 2000.
Carter (R.G) Ltd v Edmund Nuttall [2002] BLR 359
Jurisdiction Internal : Meaning of Dispute : Can an adjudicator deal with additional matters not contained in the notice of adjudication? HHJ Bowsher. TCC. 18th April 2002.
Cartright v Fay [2005] EV300106 Bath C.Ct.
Fees : Consumer construction with adjudication clause : Jurisdiction - privity - UTCCR 1999 compatible. Liability for adjudicator's fee. District Judge Mark Rutherford. 8th February 2005.
Castle Inns (Stirling) Ltd (t/a Castle Leisure Group), Re Application for Judicial Review [2008] ScotCS CSOH_178 Failed application for reduction of adjudicator\'s decision put out By Order before pronouncing any final interlocutor. Lord Glennie, Outer House Court of Session. 16th December 2008.
Double Jeopardy : Is a court in proceedings on a separate claim bound by determinations of fact made by an adjudicator where challenge to the adjudication is time barred? Adjudicator found remedial works involved only 1 week's work : Did this have implications for a claim for 4 weeks lost trading profit? Held : No : Judge not bound by that determination. Issue to go forward to trial on proof of loss. Lord Drummond Young. Outer House Ct of Session. 6th February 2007.
Castle Inns (Stirling) Ltd v. Clark Contracts Ltd [2005] ScotCS CSOH_178
Adjudicator's fees : Unjust enrichment : Time bar : Held : Adjudicator's decision on fees is final and not subject to challenge at final determination by arbitration/litigation. Unjust enrichment is not a valid ground to challenge an adjudicator's decision which is based on a contractual right. A contractual time bar on challenges to adjudication of a final certificate apply. Semble certifier must take account of the decision in final certificate. Lord Drummon Young. Outer House, CS. 29th December 2005
CFW Architects (A Firm) v Cowlin Construction Ltd [2006] EWHC 6 (TCC)
De Nouvo Trial : 3 adjudication decisions and an enforcement action embraced in an all embracing de nouvo trial of all the issues in a claim against architects and counter claim to recover monies from adjudication. Essentially 1st two adjudications substantially upheld : 3rd reversed. Counterclaim failed. TCC. HHJ Thornton. 23rd January 2006.
Chamberlain Carpentry & Joinery Ltd v Alfred McAlpine [2002] EWHC 514 (TCC)
Meaning of Dispute : Single dispute with 8 points of claim including costs of adjudication held to be ?a dispute? within HGCRA not multiple disputes. HHJ Richard Seymour. 25th March 2002.
Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd [1993] AC 334 HL.
Stay of action to Construction Adjudication Board. Lord Keith, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill. 21st January 1993.
Checkpoint Ltd v Strathclyde Pension Fund [2003] EWCA Civ 84
Fairness : An arbiter can use his personal knowledge to evaluate parties assertions but must share his expert opinions with the parties for comment. Ward LJ, Mummery LJ, Jonathan Parker. 6th February 2003
Chorus Group v Berner (BVI) Ltd [2006] EWHC 3622 (TCC)
Insolvency : Post adjudication settlement, with due date for payment of adjudication sum plus interest. Cheque from over-seas bounced. Employers incorporated outside UK. Successful ex-parte application for freezing order to Mr Justice Jackson. Application to extend freezing order and summary enforcement of non-payment of cheque. Application granted. Objections on grounds of non-disclosure dismissed. Mr Justice Ramsey. TCC. 1st November 2006
Christiani & Nielsen Ltd v Lowry Centre Dev Co Ltd [2000] HT 001/59 (TCC)
Jurisdiction External : Parties cannot pre-contract out of HGCRA : Adjudicator can rectify terms of a contract. HHJ Thornton. 29th June 2000.
CIB Properties Ltd v Birse Construction [2004] EWHC 2365 TCC
Meaning of dispute. Bias : Are complex disputes suitable for adjudication? Can on-going negotiations prevent a dispute crystallising? Do time constraints render an adjudication unfair and result in bias? What amounts to a slip that can be corrected as opposed to an invitation to the adjudicator to change his mind? HHJ Toulmin. 19th October 2004.
Citex Professional Services v. Kenmore Developments [2004] ScotCS 20
Jurisdiction of arbitrator : An adjudicator may have got the burden of proof wrong ? but his decision is enforceable pending arbitration : Defendant likely to discharge burden. Outer House C.S. T.G.Coutts. 28th January 2004.
Consolidation : Three adjudications became two arbitrations : was there sufficient convergence between the two disputes to justify merger? Held : Yes, in the circumstances and to satisfy the need to secure finality. Mr Justice Jackson. TCC. 29th September 2005.
City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2001] ScotCS 187
Extension of time : Contractor failed to comply with contract requirements for extension of time: Late completion.	Lord MacFadyen. Outer House C.S. 17th July 2001.
City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2003] ScotCS 146
Extension of time : Contractor failed to comply with contract requirements for extension of time: Late completion.Second Div. Inner House C.S. Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Kirkwood, Lord McCluskey. 20th May 2003.
Final Determination. The questions termporarily settled by the adjudicators are here brought to trial for final determination. Case on-going. Lord Drummond Young. Outer House Court of Session. 20th June 2006.
Entitlement to extension of time under a construction contract. Lord Dummond Young. Outer House Court of Session. 30th November 2007
CJP Builders Ltd v William Verry Ltd [2008] EWHC 2025 (TCC) Late submission of defence : Does DOM/2 Conditions 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- place a final date for submission of defence? Held : No. 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 breached the rules of natural justice by not extending time. Decision not enforceable. Mr Justice Akenhead : TCC. 15th August 2008.
Clark Contracts v Burrell Ltd No1 [2002] ScotCS A 70 38/00
Notice details : Is it sufficient to claim sum due under an architect?s certificate without further detail? Yes, if a sum due under the terms of the contract.Sheriff James A Taylor. Glasgow. 31st January 2002.
Clark Contracts v Burrell Ltd No 2 [2002] ScotCS A7038/00
Third Party Rights : Following on from enforcement of the adjudication decision in favour of the claimant, the court considered a counterclaim, which was essentially for the benefit of a subsidiary company. Held : No recovery - the subsidiary should claim in its own right. Sheriff James A Taylor. October 2002.
Claymore Services Ltd v Nautilus Properties Ltd [2007] EWHC 805 (TCC)
Quantum Meruit : Letters of intent : Adjudication decision unenforceable : Quantum meruit claim settled : Trial of outstanding issue - namely interest. Held : Interest at bank rate + 2% - with 50% downward adjustment in respect of 1 years interest due to failure to prosecute promtly by pursuing enforcement of an obviously unenforceable decision. Claim founded in restitution - not unjust enrichment - interest to run from date of final account + reasonable time to consider account. Mr Justice Jackson. 20th March 2007.
Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 443
Unsuccessful appeal against the 1st instance decision of Jackson J that an oral agreement was not implied into an \"entire agreement\" between contractor and sub-contractor. CA : May, Dyson; Smith LJJ. 27th April 2007.
Meaning of dispute : Adjudication / arbitration clause. In the absence of a withholding notice, contractor litigated for non payment of certificated sums due under the contract. Stay to arbitration granted. Held : There was a dispute as to entitlement and s9 Arbitration Act 1996 applied. Brooke LJ. Clarke LJ. Neuberger. LJ.7th December 2004.
Comsite Projects Ltd. v Andritz AG [2003] EWHC 958 (TCC)
Foreign Jurisdiction : Brussels Convention does not oust jurisdiction of adjudicator for operations in UK since resolution not final. Also failed exemption under s105 HGCRA 1996. HHJ Frances Kirkham. 30 April 2003.
Concrete & Coating (UK) Ltd v Cornelius Moloney [2004] Adj.C.S. 12/06
Jurisdiction; written contract; mismatch between named defendant in notice of adjudication and in enforcement action. Terms of contract insufficiently identified in correspondence to fulfil HGCRA requirements. Enforcement refused. HHJ MacKay. TCC. 6th December 2004.
Connex S.E. Ltd v MJ Building Services Group [2004] EWHC 1518 TCC
Jurisdiction : Threshold : Written agreement between three parties - oral allocation of work to one party. Contract subsequently terminated. Claimant commenced adjudication to recover costs of work and materials. Held : Termination of contract does not terminate right to adjudication - the written agreement brought the contract within Part II HGCRA adjudication. HHJ Richard Havery. 26th June 2004.
Appeal : Existence of a written contract HGCRA. Ward LJ, Dyson LJ, Carnwath LJ. 1st March 2005.
Conor Engineering Ltd v CNIM [2004] EWHC 899
Witholding Notice : Power Geneneration? Primary purpose power generation or waste disposal / s105 HGCRA ? held waste : Withholding notice against decision ? not effective. Recorder David Blunt QC. 5th April 2004
Construction Centre Group Ltd v Highland Council [2002] BLR 476CA
Enforcement, set off : Withholding notice: Liquidated damages formed subject matter of a withholding notice issued after adjudicator?s decision : held too late ? enforcement granted. Outer House C.S. Lord MacFadyen. 23rd August 2002.
Construction Centre Group Ltd v. Highland Council [2003] ScotCS 114
Enforcement, set off : Witholding notice: Liquidated damages formed subject matter of a withholding notice issued after adjudicator?s decision : held too late ? enforcement granted. Extra Div. Inner House C.S. Lord Osborne, Lord Hamilton, Lord Carloway. 11th April 2003.
Costain Ltd v Bechtel Ltd [2005] EWHC 1018
Interim Injunction : Application to injunct contract certifier for partiality and bad faith : inter-relationship with good faith requirement of adjudicator. Mr Justice Jackson. 20th May 2005.
Costain Ltd v Strathclyde Builders Ltd [2003] ScotCS 316
Natural Justice	: Adjudicator took legal advice but neither shared it with the parties nor invited comments ? held no enforcement breach of natural justice. Compare Discain.Outer House C.S. Lord Drummond Young. 17th December 2003.
Costain Ltd. v Wescol Steel Ltd. [2003] EWHC 312 (TCC)
Meaning of Dispute : Simply because payment of final account was not due did not prevent a dispute about valuation of final account chrystalising. HHJ Havery. 24th January 2003.	Cowlin Construction Ltd. v CFW Architects [2002] EWHC 2914 (TCC)
Construction contract : Existence of Dispute : Architectural design is a construction contract : Eight weeks notice does not constitute ambush; dispute had chrystalised. HHJ Frances Kirkham. 15th November 2002.
CPL Contracting Ltd v Cadenza Residential Ltd [2005] Adj.L.R. 01/31
Set off : JCT form of contract. Application for interim payment submitted. Application paid with an abatement, without comment or complaint and cashed. Could CPL recover the balance in the absence of a withholding notice. Adjudicator held YES. Court declined enforcement. HHJ Kirkham. TCC. 1st January 2005.
CSC Braehead Leisure Ltd v Laing O\'Rourke Scotland Ltd [2008] ScotCS CSOH_119
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 adjudicator\'s inquisitorial role and replace it with an adversarial role - and procedures equivalent to a court. Lord Menzies. Outer House Court of Session. 19th August 2008.
Late Referral : Late decision. Adjudication subject to JCT 1998 - application of clauses 30 and 41A. Adjudicator nominated on day 7 - referral on day 8 : Held : Valid referral - not out of time : Decision finalised late evening of final date provided by extention - emailed 12 1/2 hours later. Held : just within the meaning of delivery "forthwith". Lien over decision is against the contractual and legal regime of HGCRa. HHJ Peter Coulson. TCC. 21st December 2006.
Cubitt Building & Interiors Ltd v Richardson Roofing (Industrial) Ltd [2008] EWHC 1020 (TCC)
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. 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. Mr Justice Akenhead. 9th May 2008
Curot Contracts Ltd (t/a Dimension Shop Fitting) v. Castle Inns (Stirling) Ltd (t/a Castle Leisure Group) [2008] ScotCS CSOH_179 Summary enforcement unsuccessfully resisted on the grounds that not only had the adjudicator erred in law but that he had effectively ignored the contract and decided the case on the basis of what he perceived to be just and reasonable. Lord Glennie, Outer House Court of Session,16th December 2008.
Cygnet Healthcare plc v Higgins City Ltd [2000] 00/285 (TCC) : Bliss 10355983
Existence of contract : Existence of contract referred to arbitration : Before award reference made to adjudication : Held : Adjudicators decision held in obeyance for award. HHJ Thornton. 7th September 2000.
Danielson Development Ltd v Courtney [2004] C.L.Y. 940; 2002 WL 32093102
Daraydan Holdings Ltd v Solland International Ltd [2004] EWHC 622 (Ch)
Fraud : False statements made in the course of adjudication proceedings admissible in subsequent fraud trial. Bribery - additional 10% channelled to an agent. Mr Justice Lawrence Collins.26th March 2004.
David McLean v Swansea Housing Association Ltd [2002] BLR 125
Jurisdiction and notice	: 6 heads referred, excluding Liquidated damages. Adjudicator awarded damages less L.D. Held : L.D. integral part of EOT claim. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. TCC. 27th July 2001.
David McLean Contractors Ltd v The Albany Building Ltd [2005] EWHC B5 (TCC)
Double Jeopardy : First adjudication ruled on absence of withholding notices : the second ordered payment. Held : Separate issues - so both valid. A cross claim that would have reduced liability not permitted. His Honour Judge Gilliland QC : 10th November 2005 David Wilson Homes Ltd v Survey Services Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 34
Dispute resolution clause required a dispute to be referred to a QC but did not say for what purpose (whether ADR, adjudication or arbitration). CA. held that it was implied that it was for determination of the dispute ? so it was an arbitration clause, pursuant to s6 Arbitration Act 1996. Simon Brown LJ : Longmore LJ. 18th January 2001
Dean & Dyball v Kenneth Grubb Associates [2003] EWHC 2465 TCC
Transparency : CIC adjudication procedure ? parties to be interviewed separately and given summary of interview : Held ? parties had waived right to be present. HHJ Richard Seymour. 28th October 2003.
Debeck Ductworth v T&E Engineering Ltd [2002] BM250063 (TCC)
Construction Contract : Insufficient written terms to constitute a construction contract under s107 HGCRA 1996, so payment provisions s111, 112 not applicable. HHJ Frances Kirham. 14th October 2002.
Deko Scotland v. Edinburgh Royal Joint Venture [2003] ScotCS 113
Costs of representation	: Clause 1 Orsa gave adjudicator power to award legal costs : Power included a requirement for adjudicator to carry out taxation before costs become due. Outer House C.S. Lord Drummond Young. 11th April 2003.
Delta Electrical Ltd v P.O-Neil Electrical Ltd [2004] Adj.Soc.News March
Adjudication Cross Litigation : Faced with 3 adjudications employer submitted major counterclaim by litigation ? mediation ? statements of truth.
DGT Steel and Cladding Ltd v Cubitt Building & Interiors Ltd [2007] EWHC 1584 (TCC)
Stay to adjudication - where contract required adjudication pre-litigation. Whether the same dispute as previously adjudicated giving rise to right to litigate : Held : Distinct and separate dispute : Stay granted. HGCRA optional scheme not applicable. HHJ Peter Coulson. TCC. 4th July 2007.
Diamond (Gillies Ramsay) v. PJW Enterprises Ltd [2003] ScotCS 343
Error of law on face of record : Surveying is covered by HGCRA : Adjudicator can award damages : Adjudicator may be wrong ? no challenge ? but must ask right question. Second Div. Inner House C.S. Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Macfadyen, Lord Caplan 24th December 2003.
Diamond v. PJW Enterprises [2002] Scotcs 340
Error of law on face of record : Surveying is covered by HGCRA : Adjudicator can award damages : Adjudicator may be wrong ? no challenge ? but adjudicator must ask himself the right question. Outer House C.S. Lady Paton. 27th June 2002.
Discain Project Service v Opecprime Development Ltd [2000] BLR 402 (TCC)
Bias : Natural Justice : Enforcement refused because the adjudicator had secret conversations with one of the parties. See also (2000) CILL 1676 : QBD Judge Bowsher (QC) 9th August 2000 Discain Project Services Ltd v. Opecprime Development Ltd [2001] EWHC TCC 435
Bias :Telephone conversations with one party without disclosure of contents to the other party sufficient grounds to invalidate a decision. HHJ Peter Bowsher. 11th April 2001.
Discain Project Services Ltd v. Opecprime Developments Ltd [2001] EWHC TCC 450
Repudiation : value of works done : Claim and -counterclaim : Retrial of the merits : HHJ Richard Seymour. 11 December 2001.
Domsalla (t/a Domsalla Building Services) v Dyason [2007] EWHC 1174 (TCC)
Domestic Contract. Court held that UTCCR in the circumstances of this complex case rendered the withholding provisions and the requirement of notices unfair. An adjudicator\'s decision whilst enforceable despite errors of law could not override the statutory rights under the UTCCR. Summary enforcement application refused. Full trial of issues to follow. HHJ Thornton QC. 4th May 2007
Donal Pugh v Harris Calman Construction Ltd & Stanners Design Ltd [2003] CLDC
Adjudicator?s fees : Winner paid his share of fees ? adjudicator sued winner as joint and several and loser for his share : Held ? pay up and pay costs of enforcement. City of London Court, District Judge Trent. 30th June 2003.	Dumarc Building Services Ltd v Mr Salvador Rico [2003] KT203081Epsom C.C
Set off against decision. Bovis Leaselend v Triangle contrasted with Levelox v Fearson : No set off against adjudicator?s decision permitted CA followed. HHJ Hull. 1st February 2003.
Dunn v Glass Systems (UK) Ltd [2007] EWHC B2 (QB)
Abuse of process : Application to strike out post adjudication trial of construction dispute : ground that particulars of claim are prolix ; unintelligible ; no clear case ; failure to comply with CPR. Held : regret that I also have serious reservations about the competence of Mr Dunn. The criticisms of Mr Grant show that he has no idea how to draft a pleading. The nature of his submissions seriously leads me to doubt his judgment. My provisional view is that this is a matter where all the papers ought to be referred to the Bar Standards Board for the protection of the public. However before I take that step I shall hear submissions both from Mr Grant and Mr Dunn at the resumed hearing. John Behrens : 11th July 2007.
Durabella Ltd v Jarvis.J & Sons Ltd [2001] 1998 ORB 33
Pay when paid : Pre HGCRA contract with pay when paid : Held : Insufficient evidenced adduced to establish non-payment : Paid, so pay up. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. TCC. 19th September 2001.
Earls Terrace Properties Ltd v Waterloo Investments Ltd [2002] HT 02/237
Construction Contract : A minor variation in respect of fees did not turn a pre-HGCRA contract into a relevant Construction Contract. HHJ Richard Seymour. TCC. 14th February 2002.
Edenbooth Ltd v Cre8 Developments Ltd [2008] EWHC 570 (TCC)
Residential 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. Mr Justice Coulson. 13th March 2008
Edinburg Royal Joint Venture (Petition of) [2002] ScottCs P762/02
Enforcement of decision : Contract purported to postpone judicial review to end of contract and subject to consent of all parties. Held : This did not prevent enforcement. Outer Court S.C. T.G.Coutts QC. 2nd August 2002.
Edmund Nuttall Ltd v R G Carter Ltd. [2002] EWHC 400 (TCC)
Meaning of Dispute : Dispute in the notice and referral were set out on quite different grounds : No dispute had thus arisen : Enforcement denied. HHJ Richard Seymour. 21st March 2002.
Edmund Nuttall Ltd v Sevenoaks District Council [2000] HT 00/119 (TCC)
Slip Rule : Set off : Adjudicator can correct minor slips if he moves quickly : If liquidated damages are not claimed at adjudication, no set off. See Bloor v Bowmer : HHJ Dyson. 14th April 2000.
Elanay Contracts Ltd v The Vestry [2001] BLR 33
Natural Justice	: Pleadings at enforcement hearing do no prevent a subsequent full trial : Adjudication is not contrary to Art VI Human Rights Act. HHJ Richard Havery. TCC. 30th August 2000.
Emcor Drake & Scull Ltd v Costain Construction Ltd & Skanska Central Europe AB [2004] EWHC 2439 (TCC)
Jurisdiction of Adjudicator : Had a dispute christalized? Effect of use of documents used in a prior adjudication? Held - no abuse of process - decision enforceable. HHJ Richard Havery. 29th October 2004.
Enterprise Managed Services Ltd v East Midland Contracting Ltd [2008] EWHC 727 (TCC)
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. HHJ Stephen Davies. Manchester District Registrly. 27th March 2008
Epping Electrical Company Ltd v Briggs & Forrester (Plumbing Services) Ltd [2007] EWHC 4 (TCC)
Late decision. Application for enforcement. Parties agreed of time. Adjudicator declined to issue the decision (apparently reached by the extended date) pending payment of fees. He did not contract pre-payment terms. He released the decision two days later, despite not having been paid. Held : Decision had to be released on extension date. Out of jurisdiction - unenforceable. Ritchie : St Andrews Bay considered. HHJ Richard Havery. TCC. 19th January 2007.
Euro Construction Scaffolding Ltd v SLLB Construction Ltd [2008] EWHC 3160 (TCC) Whether the adjudicator was given jurisdiction to decide that he had jurisdiction and if not whether he did have jurisdiction. Mr Justice Akenhead. 19th December 2008
F W Cook Ltd v. Shimizu (UK) Ltd [2000] EWHC TCC 152
Final Account : Decision on entitlement on final account does not override contractual retainer provisions : payment will be in due course as per contract. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. 4th February 2000.
Fab-Tek Engineering Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd [2002] ScotCS a873-01
Human Rights Act : Arrestments and inhibitions under Scottish Law Considered.Dunfermline Sheriff's Ct. 22nd March 2002.
Faithful & Gould Ltd v Arcal Ltd [2001] Case No: E190023 TCC
Costs of adjudication : An adjudicator must act in person, but where employed, his fees can be recovered by his employer or firm. Newcastle Upon Tyne District Registry. 25th May 2001.
Farebrother B.S. Ltd v Frogmore Investments Ltd [2001] CILL 1762
Counter-claim; jurisdiction : Adjudicator limited his decision to matters in the notice, treating a counterclaim as outside his jurisdiction.HHJ Gilliland. 20th April 2001.
Fastrack Contractors Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd [2000] BLR 168
Jurisdiction - internal	: A notice cannot be limited to part of a dispute; but it can be in general terms including -How much money is due; HHJ Thornton. TCC. 4th January 2000.
Fence Gate Ltd v James R Knowles Ltd [2001] CILL 1757
Jurisdiction - threshold : Giving evidence of fact or opinion about construction works at an arbitration is not construction work under the HGCRA. TCC. HHJ Gilliland. 31st May 2001.
Ferson Contractors Ltd. v Levolux A.T. Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 11
Enforcement of decision	: Compare Bovis v T : Contract provided that on termination of contract no further sums payable : Could a post adjudication termination defeat decision ? NO. Ward LJ. Mantell LJ. Longmore LJ. 22nd January 2003.
Fleming Builders Ltd v. Forrest or Hives [2008] ScotCS CSOH_103 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. Lord Menzies - Outer House Court of Session. 15th July 2008.
Full Metal Jacket Ltd v Gowlain Building Group Ltd [2005] CA. Lawtel AC9400559
Enforcement : Counterclaim : At first instance (HHJ Mackay, Liverpool C.C. 10th May 2005) refused to enforce adjudication and found for counterclaim : Contract specified roof design in a drawing. Contractor had ignored the design : Client entitled to cost of replacing the roof. Decision upheld on Appeal. CA. May LJ, Arden LJJ, Sir Peter Gibson. 9th December 2005.
Galliford Northern Ltd v Markel UK Ltd [2003] Leeds District Registry QBD
Underwriter guarantors : To enforce a claim against a losing defendant?s insurers the claimant must first secure enforcement against the assured then move against the insurers. Q.B.D. John Behrens. 12th May 2003.
Galliford Try Construction Ltd v Michael Heal Associates Ltd [2003] EWHC 2886 TCC
Construction contract: An adjudication winner, whilst claiming enforcement subsequently denied there was a contract : big mistake, since adjudication became invalid. HHJ Richard Seymour. 1st December 2003
Gennario Maurizio Picardi v Paolo Cuniberti TCC [2002] EWHC 2923
Jurisdiction : Fees of architect : Adjudicator held a RIBA contract concluded : Court found no evidence of such a contract so adjudicator had no jurisdiction.TCC. HHJ Toulmin. 19th December 2002.
George Parke v The Fenton Gretton Partnership [2001] CILL 1712
Insolvency of defendant	: Bankruptcy loomed for a party with a valid claim against the claimant seeking to enforce adjudication via a statutory demand : Stay ordered. Ch.Div. HHJ Boggis. 2nd August 2000.
Geris v CNIM [2005] EWHC 499 (TCC)
Enforcement & Set off : Adjudicator decided sums payable to claimant but also decided defendant had right to set off unquantified sums. Held : Enforcement denied pending quantification. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. 11th February 2005.
Gibson Lea Retail Interiors Ltd v Makro Ltd [2001] BLR 407
Construction Contract : Shopfittings which did not become fixtures are outside the scope of the HGCRA. HHJ Richard Seymour. TCC. 24th July 2001.
Gibson v Imperial Homes [2002] EWHC 676 (TCC)
Construction Contract : Written evidence of contract found by the court : Proposer of a Co can act as agent of a Co before its incorporation so that the Co is a contracting party. HHJ Toulmin. 27th February 2002. Gipping Construction Ltd v Eaves Ltd [2008] EWHC 3134 (TCC) 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. Mr Justice Akenhead. 11th December 2008.
Gleeson v Devonshire Green Holdings [2004] EWHC 1504 (TCC)
In the absence of a notice pursuant to clause 30.3/4 JCT with contractor's design under 30.5 there is an obligation to pay. JCT does not permit any set off or witholding against an adjudictor's decision for claims asserted after submission to adjudication. HHJ Gilliland. 19th March 2004.
Glencot Development & Design Ltd v. Ben Barrett & Son Ltd [2001] EWHC TCC 15
Adjudication and Mediation : Bias : Clear advice on potential prejudice arising out of disclosure during mediation needed before a mediator can act as an adjudicator in the same dispute. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. 13th February 2001.
GPN Ltd. v O2 (UK) Ltd. [2004] EWHC 2494 TCC
Architect had no authority beyond negotiating terms of contract, to conclude a valid construction contract. Enforcement of adjudicator?s in relation to a purported contract that the architect had no authority, express, implied or ostensible, to conclude was thus refused. HHJ Frances Kirkam. 22nd October 2004.
Gray & Sons Builders (Bedford) Ltd. v Essential Box Co Ltd. [2006] EWHC 2520 (TCC)
Successful enforcement action : No defence ? costs will be awarded on an indemnity basis if enforcement resisted and defence dropped pre-trial or at the trial. There is no requirement to accept ?reasonable offers? to settle an award ? since legal entitlement to entire amount. Minor deductions to costs made because it was unnecessary for a partner to be accompanied by assistant in court. HHJ Peter Coulson. 11th October 2006
Great Eastern Hotel Company Ltd v John Laing Construction Ltd [2005] EWHC 181 (TCC) at 263/4
Status of decision : The provisional finding by an Adjudicator making a summary award under the HGCRA 1996 does not bind the party not privy to the contract.The previous finding of fact by the adjudicator had no relevance to the present court proceedings. HHJ David Wilcox. 24th February 2005.
Green v GW IBS Ltd & G&M Floorlayers Ltd [2001] LE014261 Leicester CC
Jurisdiction : Fees : Carpets & floor tile laying within Act : Reasonable fees are recoverable jointly and severally : recovery of adjudicator?s legal costs a separate issue. Deputy District Judge T.Grannum. 18th July 2001.
Grovedeck Ltd v. Capital Demolition Ltd [2000] EWHC TCC 139
Adjudicator : Oral contract : Para 8 Scheme : Adjudicator cannot act on two disputes on separate contract without agreement of both parties : Involved two oral demolition contracts. HHJ Bowsher. 24th Febrary 2000.
Guardi Shoes Ltd v Datum Contracts [2002] CH.D Companies Court. 5816 OF 2002
Insolvency of defendant	: Lock out; non-payment : Adjudication : non-payment : Statutory demand; asserted a counterclaim; Statutory demand enforced : Compare G.Parke v Fenton. Mr Justice Ferris. 28th October 2002.
Hackwood Ltd v Areen Design Services Ltd [2005] EWHC 2322 (TCC)
Jurisdiction : Letter of intent : Terms of contract in the letter incorporated JCT terms into an interim contract : Never replaced : In consequence jurisdiction for adjudication and subsequent arbitration based on JCT. s72 Arbitration Act 1996 reference does not automatically preclude applicant from subsequently participating in arbitration where the application fails. Mr Justice Field. 31st October 2005. Hadden Construction Ltd v. Midway Services Limited [2007] ScotSC 58
Insolvency � adjudicate or wind up petition : Applicants for adjudication deterred from continuing on being informed that the defendant was insolvent. Commenced winding up petition � which failed when accounts revealed the company was solvent. Court nonetheless ordered costs to the petitioner. Appellant / defendant unsuccessfully appealed the costs order. Sheriff Principal Edward F Bowen QC. 17th October 2007
Hands v Morrison Construction Services Ltd [2006] EWHC 2018 (Ch) : LAWTEL AC9100910
Disclosure : Admissibility & Evidence : Application for disclosure of documentation related to an adjudication (AWG v Rockingham Speedway [2004]) in support of a claim of misrepresentation inducing an investment in that by virtue of the adjudication Morrisson fully aware that the race track would not be fit for purpose (though in the event the adjudication decision had not been enforceable). Disclosure ordered. M Briggs QC. 16th June 2006.
Harlow & Milner Ltd v Teasdale No1 [2006] EWHC 54 (TCC)
Enforcement : Solvency : Failed bankruptcy proceedings and statutory demand - followed by successful enforcement proceedings. No grounds to resist. Defendant cannot complain that adjudication is conducted quickly. Solvency matters are only grounds for a stay of enforcement - not a defence. HHJ Peter Coulson QC. TCC. 16th January 2006.
Harlow & Milner Ltd v Teasdale No2 [2006] EWHC 535 (TCC)
Interim order : 16th January the court ordered enforcement of adjudicator's decision. 20th February following non-payment, court issued an interim charging order with notice of final hearing. It was served 3 days late following correction of a clerical error. Defendant commenced arbitration. Held : Order finalised. 21 day CPR time limit discretionary. Arbitration proceedings no reason not to finalise order. TCC. HHJ Coulson. 15th March 2006.
Harlow & Milner Ltd v Teasdale No3 [2006] EWHC 1708 (TCC)
Sale Order : Application for an order for sale pursuant to CPR 73.10 as the final stage of proceedings to enforce an adjudicator's decision. HHJ Peter Coulson. TCC. 7th July 2006.
Harris Calnan Construction Co. Ltd v Ridgewood (Kensington) Ltd [2007] EWHC 2738 (TCC)
Written contract � letter of intent � validity of service : costs. Adjudicator found a written contract based on letter of intent. Service out of jurisdiction � in Jersey valid. Costs are recoverable even in an undefended action. HHJ Peter Coulson QC: TCC. 15th November 2007
Hart Builders (Edinburg) Ltd v St. Andrews Ltd [2002] ScotSC A69/02 Edinburgh
Withholding notice : No after the event set off permitted against decision where issue not put to adjudicator and no Witholding notice issued. Sheriff Isobel Anne Poole. Advocate, Sheriff of Lothian and Borders. 20th August 2002.
Hart Builders (Edinburgh) v. St. Andrew Ltd [2003] ScotSC 14
Withholding notice : No after the event set off permitted against decision where issue not put to adjudicator and no withholding notice issued. Appeal.Sheriff Principal Iain MacPhail QC : 10 January 2003
Hart Investments Ltd v Fidler [2006] EWHC 2857 (TCC)
Action to set aside main default judgement in respect of the collapse of a wall related to a construction contract and application for summary enforcement of adjudication. 1) Default judgment set aside : 2) Summary enforcement refused : a) not a construction contract under HGCRA arising out of letters of intent : b) referral document submitted 8 days after notice - so invalid notice : Hence no jurisdiction : c) contractor insolvent - so enforcement also declined. HHJ Peter Coulson QC: TCC. 3rd November 2006.
Hart Investments Ltd v Larchpark Ltd. [2007] EWHC 291 (TCC)
Security of Costs - counter-claim - stay pending payment : Post adjudication litigation in respect of damages for collapse of building and counterclaim for payment. Security of costs ordered - with stay of counterclaim. Main issue to proceed to trial. Coulson J. TCC. 9th February 2007
Hart Investments Ltd v T.M.C. Fidler [2007] EWHC 1058 (TCC)
Engineer\'s liability for failure to advise on contractor\'s non-compliance with design specifications for temporary works and resultant collapse of facia and side wall during basement excavation activities. Held : Joint liability in contract & tort - together with special relationship extending liability to pure economic loss. Mr Recorder Roger Stewart Q.C. 30th March 2007
Harvey Shopfitters Ltd v ADI Ltd [2003] TCC
Contract Procedure : Letters of intent : formation of contract : quantum meruit : oral and written terms : estoppel : amendment of claim : damages. John Uff QC. 6th March 2003.
Harvey Shopfitters Ltd. v ADI Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 1757
Contract Procedure : Letters of intent : formation of contract : quantum meruit : oral and written terms : estoppel : amendment of claim : damages. Appeal Dismissed.Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, Brooke LJ, Latham LJ.13th November 2003.
Harwood v Lantrode [2001] EWHC TCC
Insolvency : Challenging evidence of decision and equitable set off not ground to resist enforcement : Insolvency hearing pending ? award to be paid into court. HHJ Richard Seymour. 24th November 2000.
Written Contract : Agreement to supply and fix ceilings in lifts subsequently varied to accomodate archetects specifications subject to a variation in price. Ordered to go ahead but without verification of price change. Refusal to pay new price referred to adjudication. Enforcement resisted on grounds of NO WRITTEN CONTRACT : Held there was an identifiable mechanism to establish the price under s15 SOGA 1979 - so enforceable. HHJ Frances Kirkham. 18th November 2005 Herschel Engineering Ltd v Breen Properties Ltd [2000] BLR 272
Concurrent actions : Insolvency : Enforcement may be refused if proof of inability to repay established. Failed to do so in this case. Litigation proceedings by one party does not prevent the other preceeding to adjudication in the interim period. HHJ Dyson. TCC. 14th April 2000.
Herschel Engineering Ltd v Breen Properties Ltd [2000] HT 00/107 (QBD)
Concurrent actions : Insolvency	: Enforcement may be refused if proof of inability to repay established. Failed to do so in this case. Litigation proceedings by one party does not prevent the other preceeding to adjudication in the interim period.	HHJ Humphrey Lloyd QC. 28th July 2000.
HG Construction Ltd v Ashwell Homes (East Anglia) Ltd. [2007] EWHC 144 (TCC)
Double jeopardy : Adjudication 1 - Applicant sought an adjudicator's declaration that contract terms sufficiently clear to enable sums allocated to sections to be calculated thus giving rise to a right to levy LADs. In adjudication 3 before a different adjudicator a return of LADs previously deducted sought - on grounds that it was not possible to allocate sums. Enforcement denied : Essentially the same dispute as 1st adjudication. Mr Justice Ramsey. TCC. 1st February 2007.
Enforcement, set off : Withholding notice : Liquidated damages formed subject matter of a withholding notice issued after adjudicator?s decision : held too late ? enforcement granted. Judicial Review The Highland Council lost adjudication and ordered by court to pay : Commenced an adjudication for late completion : Attempted set off of court order : Not allowed. Outer House. C.S. Lord Carloway. 5th August 2003.
Application to suspend a charge granted. Enforcement : Judicial Review : The Council lost adjudication and ordered by court to pay : Commenced an adjudication for late completion : Attempted set off of to court order : Not allowed. Judgement delivered by Lord Johston. Extra Div. Inner House C.S.Lord MacLean, Lord Osborne. 23rd January 2004.
Hills Electrical & Mechanical Plc v. Dawn Construction Ltd [2003] ScotCS 107
Due date for payment : Default scheme?s payment provisions only apply to aspects where contract fails to specify ? whereas s108 non-compliance displaces all aspects. Outer House C.S. Lord Clarke. 7th April 2003.
Hillview Industrial Developments (UK) Ltd v Botes Building Ltd [2006] EWHC 1365 (TCC)
Stay : Claimant sought to enforce adjudication decision in its favour for liquidated damages for delay. Defendant had also pursued subsequent proceedings on a final account dispute in respect of which an enforcement hearing was pending. Defendant conceded there were no grounds to oppose the current enforcement action - but sought to combine the two enforcement actions in order to set one off against the other. Court declined the stay. HHJ John Toulmin QC. 7th June 2006.
Hitec Power Protection BV v MCI Worldcom Ltd [2002] EWHC 1953 (TCC)
Meaning of Dispute : Adjudication commenced the day after a claim asserted. Held : Contract allowed 10 days for response to claim ? so no dispute had chrystalised. HHJ Richard Seymour. 15th August 2002.
Holt Insulation Ltd v Colt International Ltd [2001] LV01 5929 TCC
Double jeopardy	:Following an adjudication a 2nd dispute referred to adjudication : Held ? not same dispute ? different issues ? jurisdiction. HHJ Mackay. 1st February 2001.
Homer Burgess Ltd v Chirex (Annan) Ltd [2000] BLR 124
Jurisdiction : Pipework operations outside HGCRA s105 ? rest within : Court could enforce non or some of decision. See Gillies Ramsay ? Lord McFaddon retracted his comparison of adjudication to public law judicial review ? error of law not a ground for challenge. Outer House C.S. Lord MacFadyen 18th November 1999.
Homer Burgess Ltd v Chirex (Annan) Ltd [1999] ScotCS 264
Jurisdiction : Pipework operations outside HGCRA s105 ? rest within : Court could enforce non or some of decision. See Gillies Ramsay ? Lord McFaddon retracted his comparison of adjudication to public law judicial review ? error of law not a ground for challenge. Lord MacFadyen. 10th November 1999.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd. [2007] EWHC 390 (TCC)
Settlement terms : inspection : Multiplex brokered a settlement with WNSL. Did the subcontractor have a right to inspect under the contract. Since the settlement resulted in a variation to the annex to the main contract and the sub contract provided a right to inspect the main contract documentation, this included any subsequent variations. Honeywell wished to ascertain whether or not the changes in turn had implications for claims they wish to pursue in adjudication. Jackson. Mr Justice. TCC. 27th February 2007
Hortimax Ltd v Hedon Salads Ltd [2004] Adj.Soc.
Jurisdiction : Exception to HGCRA d105(2)(c)(iii) : Pipe and lighting installations for the growing of cucumbers excluded. Homer Burgess v Chirex : Comsite v Andritz considered. However, defendant had waived the exception and given the adjudicator the power to decide upon his own jurisdiction. 6 awards upheld. His Honour Judge Gilliland Q.C. TCC. Salford. 15th October 2004.
Hughes (JW) Building Contractors vs GB Metalwork.[2003] EWHC 2421
Existence of Dispute : Bias : On the facts a dispute had chrystalised: The adjudicator made every effort to ensure defendant had all relevant paperwork : No stay for insolvency allowed. Mr Justice Forbes. 3rd October 2003.
Humes Building Contracts v Charlotte Homes (Surrey) [2007] LAWTEL AC0113534
Natural Justice : Summary enforcement refused - adjudicator found on grounds not argued by the parties, without affording an opportunity for the issue to be addressed. TCC. Gilliland J. 3rd January 2007 Hurst Stores Ltd v M.L.Europe Property Ltd [2003] EWHC 1650 TCC
Finality of interim Accounts : An attempt to render a final settlement of interim accounts signed off by a project manager failed because he had no contractual capacity. Colin Reese QC. 21st June 2003.
Hurst Stores Ltd v M.L.Europe Property Ltd [2004] EWCA 490
Appeal to CA. Lord Justice Buxton,Lady Justice Arden, Mr Justice Pumfrey. 1st April 2004.
IDE Contracting Ltd. v RG Carter Cambridge Ltd [2004] EWHC 36 TCC
Nomination procedure : Where contract names an adjudicator, all parties must be informed of his unavailability before an Adjudicator Nominating Body can be approached to make a nomination. HHJ Havery. 16th January 2004.
Image Decorations Ltd v Dean & Bowes (Contracts) Ltd [2004]
Jurisdiction : Referral limited to entitlement : Adjudicator decided on entitlement and quantum. Enforcement refused for lack of jurisdiction. Court and judge not available. 5th March 2004.
Impresa Castelli SpA v Cola Holdings Ltd [2002] TCC
Jurisdiction of the court : Waiver : Parties adjudicated certain disputes but then agreed to refer other issues to court : Held : agreement overrode contract provisions for arbitration etc. HHJ Thornton. 2nd May 2002.
Interserve Industrial Services Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd [2006] EWHC 741 (TCC)
Set Off : Claimant successfully adjudicated a claim and monies became due. The Defendant then successfully adjudicated a dispute but monies had not yet become due. At enforcement hearing court held that the first adjudication could not be set off against the second. The Act and Scheme required immediate payment. A system of rolling balances cannot be operated in respect of successive adjudications. HHJ Jackson. TCC. 6th February 2006.
Isovel Contracts Ltd v ABB Technologies Ltd [2001] CH.Div
Insolvency : Court ordered enforcement despite the fact that business was in administration and asserted set off claims : Compare Bougyes & see Insolvency Act. Deputy Judge Simon Berry Q.C. 30th November 2001.
J T Mackley & Company Ltd v Gosport Marina Ltd [2002] EWHC 1315 (TCC)
Arbitration challenge : Clause 66 ICE : Engineer?s decision a pre-requisite of arbitration, even for a challenge to an adjudication decision. HHJ Richard Seymour. 3rd July 2002.
Jamil Mohammed v Dr Michael Bowles [2003] 394 SD 2002
Insolvency : Adjudicator?s decision can be the subject matter of a statutory demand : In absence of a legal challenge ? demand can be validly made : Costs awarded. H.Ct in Bankruptcy. Registrar Derrek. 14th March 2003.
Jerome Engineering v Lloyd Morris [2002] CILL 1827
Notice of Intention : The amount claimed does not have to be set out in the notice of intention : DOM2 allows for referral to set out specifics. HHJ Cockroft. TCC. 23rd November 2001.
John Cothliff Ltd v Allen Build Ltd [1999] CILL 1530
Costs of Adjudication :	Court held adjudicator could award costs ? implied : but compare Northern Developments v Nichol ? needs express power. Liverpool C.Ct. HHJ Marshall Evans. 29th July 1999.
John Mowlem & Co plc v Hydra-Tight Ltd [2000] EWHC HT 184 (TCC)
Appointment mechanism : If s108 not fully implemented Scheme applies : Parties must conform to appointment procedure : declaration available if procedure defective. HHJ Toulmin. 6th June 2000.
John Roberts Architects Ltd v Parkcare Homes (No. 2) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 64
Costs : Successful appeal against the 1st instance decision of HHJ Havery. On the correct interpretation of the clause "The Adjudicator may in his discretion direct the payment of legal costs and expenses of one party by another as part of his decision. The Adjudicator may determine the amount of costs to be paid ..... ." the adjudicator had jurisdiction over the outstanding issue as to costs costs even if the claimant withdrew the claim. CA before The Rt Hon May LJ; The Rt Hon Keene LJ; Rt Hon Scott Baker LJ. 9th February 2006.
John Roberts Architects Ltd v Parkcare Homes (No2) Ltd [2005] EWHC 1637 TCC
Costs of discontinued adjudication : PH twice commenced and then discontinued adjudications. The second adjudicator awarded JRA its costs of the adjudication. Held : Once adjudication abandoned, adjudicator had no jurisdiction to award costs. HHJ Havery. 25th July 2005.
Joinery Plus Ltd (in administration) v Laing Ltd [2003] EWHC HT 02/323
Construction contract : Adjudicator applied JCT terms to a DOM 1 dispute : Since wrong contract applied decision a nullity ? could not be corrected under slip rule. HHJ Thornton. 15th January 2003.
Joseph Finney plc v Gordon & Gary Vickers [2001] EWHC HT 00/454 (TCC)
Waiver of right to adjudicate : Parties can contract out of right to adjudicate, or arbitrate. HHJ David Wilcox. 7th March 2001.
Karl Construction Ltd v Sweeney Civil Engineering (Scotland) Ltd, [2000] ScotCS 330
Payment provisions : Application for Judicial Review. Parties cannot agree that a contract complies with the Payment Scheme - only the adjudicator/court.Outer House.CS. Lord Caplan. 21st December 2000.
Payment provisions : Parties cannot agree that a contract complies with the Payment Scheme - only the adjudicator/court. Exra Div. Inner House C.S. Lord Marnoch, Lord Dawson, Lord Clarke. 22nd January 2002.
Karl Construction Ltd v. Palisade Properties Plc [2002] ScotCS 350
Human Rights Act & HGCRA : Arrestments and inhibitions under Scottish Law Considered ? Implications of HRA to striking out for lack of diligence in pursuing a suit.Outer House. C.S. Lord Drummon Young. 14th January 2002.	Ken Biggs Contractors v Norman [2004] Adjudication Soc.
Construction Contract : Consent to adjudication contractor and residential occupier client. Exchange of letters indicated JCT 1988. Since it was unclear whether the typographical error related to 1981 or 1998 edition, the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Summary only - no transcript available. TCC HHJ Havery. 4th August 2004.
Ken Griffin & John Tomlinson v Midas Homes Ltd [2001] 78 Con LR
Notice of intention : Notice failed to clearly identify all the issues subsequently referred : Only the one clear matter enforceable and claimant liable to costs on the rest. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. TCC. 21st July 2000.
Kier Regional Ltd (t/a Wallis) v City & General (Holborn) Ltd [2006] EWHC 848 (TCC)
Bias : Adjudicator disregarded expert evidence not available at the time the dispute crystallised. Respondent asserted breach of due process and resisted enforcement. Held : Even if in error, if the adjudcator decided on an analysis of facts or law that it was irrelevant this nonetheless within his jurisdiction. This is an inherrent risk within adjudication. TCC. Jackson J. 6th March 2006.
Kier Regional Ltd (t/a Wallis) v City & General (Holborn) Ltd [2008] EWHC 2454 (TCC) Application by a judgment creditor for a third party debt order to enforce a judgment based on the enforcement of an adjudicator\'s decision. Mr Justice Coulson. 17th October 2008
Knapman R J Ltd v Richards [2006] EWHC 2518 (TCC)
Cherry-picking & set off : Damages awarded for for part of EOT claim. Enforcement procedings. Defendant sought to set off LAD's he asserted due on period of EOT claim not allowed - allegedly leading to a negative balance. Assertion non-payment of negative balance equivalent of cherry-picking. Held : LAD's a mere claim not an entitlement yet. Enforcement granted. H.H.J.Peter Coulson QC. 12 October 2006
KNS Industrial Services Ltd v. Sindall Ltd [2000] EWHC TCC 75
Cherry picking elements of an adjudicator's decision : KNS sought to cherry pick elements of decision ? ie award on one aspect and deny award on reduction and then enforce payment of larger amount. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. 17th July 2000
Inter-relationship between adjudication and arbitration and the right to refer a dispute onwards to arbitration under the bespoke terms of a construction contract. Mr. Justice Cooke. 24th June 2005.
Lathom Construction Ltd v Brian & Ann Cross [1999] CILL 1568
Meaning of Dispute : If a valid compromise is concluded, there is no dispute so adjudication not permitted. TCC. HHJ Mackay. 29th October 1999.
Lead Technical Services Ltd v CMS Medical Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 316
Jurisdiction : Wrong ANB : CA overturned summary enforcement decision - arguable case that there was a valid deed that supplanted original construction contract - to the effect that the relevant ANB was governed by the T&C.Solicitors Rules and that there was a fee capping agreement in place. Judge had failed to explain why this evidence was dismissed. CA. Buxton LJ, Rix LJ, Moses LJ. 30th January 2007.
Leading Rule v Phoenix Interiors Ltd [2007] EWHC 2293 (TCC)
Suspension � non payment of VAT on decision. Whether or not notice of suspension of works valid for non-payment of VAT on an adjudicator�s decision. Application for preliminary issues. Case on-going. Mr Justice Akenhead. TCC. 3rd October 2007
Ledwood Mechanical Engineering Ltd v Whessoe Oil and Gas Ltd [2007] EWHC 2743 (TCC)
Pain & Gain � impact on payment of adjudication decision. (1) Is the risk/reward r�gime to be applied to all applications or only those after completion? The risk/reward r�gime, referred to as \"pain and gain\", limits Ledwood\'s entitlement to payment of costs by reference to target hours. (2) Should the Adjudicator\'s decision be given effect by applying his decision to Application 19 or Application 22? (3) If the risk/reward r�gime applies to applications for payment prior to completion, can the Joint Venture set off a sum in respect of an adjustment for risk/reward? Mr Justice Ramsey. TCC. 20th November 2007
Levolux A T Ltd v Ferson Contractors Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1382
Application to Appeal decision of HHJ David Wilcox TCC. (See also later appeal Ferson v Levolux [2003] EWCA. Civ 11) Pill LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ. 8th August 2002. Levolux A.T. Ltd v Ferson Contractors Ltd [2002] BLR 341
Enforcement of decision	: Compare Bovis v T : Contract provided that on termination of contract no further sums payable : Could a post adjudication termination defeat decision ? NO. HHJ David Wilcox. 26th June 2002.
Liberty Mercian Ltd v Dean & Dyball Construction Ltd [2008] EWHC 2617 (TCC)
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. Mr Justice Coulson. 31st October 2008 Linaker Limited v Riviera Construction [1999] Adj.L.R. 11/04
Interest : Enforcement costs : Multi-track procedure. No apparent defence to enforcement action in respect of a valid adjudication decision. Court applied the multi-track procedure - speed of the essence for adjudication enforcement actions. Interest at 8% awarded from time when payment due. Break down of allowable costs for an enforcement action. His Honour Judge Thornton Q.C. TCC. 4th November 1999.
Lloyd Projects Ltd v John Malnick [2005] EWHC (TCC). Lawtel AC0109524
Construction Contract : Oral contract subsequently part reduced to writing in correspondence but excluding definitive details of scope insufficient for HGCRA adjudication. Kirkham HHJ Frances. 22nd July 2005.
London & Amsterdam Properties Ltd v Waterman [2003] EWHC 3059 TCC
Fees, ambush : Dispute ? An hourly rate is permissible instead of a fixed fee :A dispute as to entitlement is permitted even in absence of quantum details. Ambush established. HHJ David Wilcox. 18th December 2003.
London Underground Ltd v Metronet Rail BCV Ltd [2008] EWHC 502 (TCC)
De nuovo trial : contract interpretation : general principles : was the adjudicator (non HGCRA stepped resolution program) correct in rejecting an interpretation because it led to an absurdity? Held : Not absurd and should be applied. Mr Justice Ramsey. 14th March 2008
Lovell Projects Limited v Legg & Carver [2003] BLR 452
Voluntary adjudication : Residential contract ? with contractual adjudication : Held complied with UCTA 1977 : Precarious finances of contractor due to non-payment. Pay up. TCC. HHJ Moseley. 17th July 2003.
LPL Electrical Services Ltd v Kershaw Mechanical Services [2001] HT 00/427 (TCC)
Jurisdiction : Assertion that adjudicator only had jurisdiction for a specific interim payment : Held : Adjudicator interpreted contract : Right or wrong, enforceable. HHJ Richard Havery. 2nd February 2001.
Macob Civil Engineering Ltd v. Morrison Construction Ltd [1999] EWHC TCC 254
Stay of adjudication : Adjudication process supported by court : First case establishing legality of the process : No stay permitted. HHJ Dyson : 12th February 1999.
Mair v Arshad [2007] ScotSC 60
Absence of withholding notices : Summary judgement application. three invoices issued for work done. 10% paid, balance outstanding. No withholding notices issued. Defendant asserts that the action should be dismissed. Defendants assertions dismissed. Outstanding issues to go to trial regarding adequacy of invoices etc. Sheriff Derek O\'Carroll, Sheriffdom of Tayside, Central & Fife at Cupar. 23rd October 2007
Makers UK Ltd v London Borough of Camden [2008] EWHC 1836 (TCC)
Jurisdiction : 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. Mr Justice Akenhead. 25th July 2008.
Management Solutions & Professional Consultants Ltd v Bennett (Electrical) Services Ltd [2006] EWHC 1720 (TCC)
Construction Contract : Oral variations to an otherwise written contract do not take the contract outside the scope of the HGCRA. Where a written contract replaces an oral contract, the oral contract ceases to have effect and the contract is within the scope of the HGCRA. Where two adjudication decisions have been issued one may be set off against the other during enforcement proceedings. No winner - no costs. Thornton J. TCC. 10th July 2006
Management Solutions & Professional Consultants Ltd v Bennett (Electrical) Services Ltd [2006] EWHC 1720_2 (TCC)
Costs : Challenge to costs order. Should costs be awarded on the basis of who writes the cheque pays the costs? Day v Day (2006) EWCA Civ 415, Johnsey Estates v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] EWCA Civ 535, considered. Held : Both parties wrote a cheque - that one was bigger than the other does not require the court to decide whether a "draw" is a score or no score draw. HHJ Thornton. TCC. 23rd August 2006
Martin Girt v Page Bentley [2002] EWHC 2434
Tax due on award : Adjudicator made a decision on global sum due including tax even though tax issue not pleaded. Held : He could do so ? and lower sum only claimed. HHJ David Wilcox. 12th April 2002.
Recovery of legal fees for advice in respect of litigation, arbitration and adjudication of a construction dispute. Humphrey Lloyd J. 17th December 2003.
Mast Electrical Services v Kendall Cross Holdings Ltd [2007] EWHC 1296 (TCC)
Construction Contract : Application for declaration that three construction contracts had been concluded for electrical works. Following a detailed analysis of correspondence court determined there was no concluded contract - rates not agreed. Whilst payment due on a quantum meruit basis - this would have to be pursued by litigation. Adjudication not available. Declaration refused. Mr Justice Jackson. 17th May 2007
Maxi Construction Management Ltd v Mortons Rolls Ltd [2001] ScotCS 199
Payment provisions : Failure to deal with an application for evaluation of interim payments does not lead to a dispute : Clause 12 Scottish Builders Contract requires full basis of demand. Outer House C.S. Lord MacFadyen. 7th August 2001.
Maymac Environmental Services v Faraday [2001] 75 Con LR
Written contract : Evidence of lack of written contract to resist enforcement insufficient : Also suggested since matter not pleaded, estoppel : But see later cases.	HHJ Toulmin. TCC.16th October 2000.
McAlpine PPS Pipeline Systems Joint Venture v Transco Plc [2004] EWHC 2030 (TCC)
Internal Jurisdiction : Enforcement of Adjudicator?s award successfully resisted on the grounds that the applicant had broadened the scope of the issues during the course of the adjudication from those contained in the original reference. AWG v Rockingham applied. HHJ Toulmin. 12th May 2004.
McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) P/L v National Grid Gas plc [2006] EWHC 2551 (TCC)
Jurisdiction : New contract replaced prior contract which had given rise to disputes in order to seek resolution. Dispute under new contract referred to adjudication. Whether new contract a construction contract. Held : In the circumstances continued prior adjudication provisions. Jurisdiction. Mr Justice Jackson. 3rd October 2006.
Mecright v Morris [2001] HT 01 84 (TCC)
Jurisdiction Internal: Dispute as to legality of termination : Adjudicator found unlawful repudiation but went on to award unclaimed damages. Outside Scope.	HHJ Richard Seymour. TCC. 22nd June 2001.
Medlock Products Ltd v SCC Construction Ltd. [2006] LAWTEL AC0111733
Witholding notice : Absence of notice - impact upon winding up petition and application to strike out as an indicator that a cross / counter claim for failure to pay on a valid application was spurious. (N.B. Did not involve an adjudication - applicant proceeded directly to a winding up petition). HHJ Weeks QC. District Registry (Bristol). 13th July 2006.
Mellowes Archital Ltd v Bell Projects Ltd [1997] EWCA Civ 2491
Abatement and set off under DOM/1. Inter-relationship between set off and abatement : Are they mutually exclusive? Butler-Sloss LJ; Hobhouse LJ; Buxton LJ. CA. 15th October 1997 Melville Dundas Ltd v George Wimpey UK Ltd [2005] ScotCS CSIH_88
Successful appeal against the decision of Lord Clarke that under the terms of a JCT Contract, on the appointment of a receiver all claims cease to be payable. Held : the HGCRA was intended to improve cash flow. Its provisions cannot be contracted out of by the parties. Extra Division, Inner House. Court of Session. Lords Nimmo Smith, Mackay of Drumadoon, MacLean : 15th December 2005.
Insolvency : Administration : By a 3/2 majority the House of Lords restored the decision of Lord Clarke : Clause 27 JCT that suspends outstanding payments of all payments that accrue from a date 28 days prior to a contractor entering into administration pending the making up of a final account does not offend the HGCRA - and thus a sum due in the absence of a withholding notice 14 days before administration is not enforceable under the HGCRA. per Lords Hoffmann, Hope & Walker : Lords Mance & Neuberger dissenting. 25th April 2007 Melville Dundas Ltd v George Wimpey UK Ltd [2004] ScotCS cla 1810
Agreement that on receivership appointment all claims governed by Cl27 of contract in compliance with HGCRA Payment provisions even though it cancells out what was previously due under the contract. Has general application to litigation, arbitration and adjudication.Outer House C.S. Lord Clarke. 22nd October 2004.
Construction Contract - Meaning of. A dispute arising out of a compromise agreement to a construction dispute is not a construction dispute for the purposes of the HGCRA. Lord Drummond Young, Outer House Court of Session. 7th September 2006.
Michael John Construction Ltd v Golledge [2006] EWHC 71 (TCC)
Legal Personality : Jurisdiction : Who is liable for work to a Rugby Club (an unincorporated association) - members, nominated members, trustees? 1st adjudication against an individual : 2nd against group of members : Held : Adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine who the relevant persons were. 2nd adjudication corrected matters from the first so only the 2nd enforced. No issue of double jeopardy. Peter Coulson HHJ. TCC. 27th January 2006.
Michael John Construction Ltd v St Peters Rugby Football Club [2007] EWHC 1857 (TCC)
Double jeopardy : The Gollege dispute sent on to arbitration by different legal personalities to the origing adjudication enforced in 2006. Arbitrator delivered an interim award on jurisdiction proclaiming current applicant the actual party to the contract & dispute. s67 AA 1996 jurisdiction reference - award set aside - personalities subject to determination by enforcing court - where any new evidence should have been canvassed. Issue now res judicata. HHJ Wilcox. 30th July 2007.
Insolvency : Stay of enforcement on the grounds of an asserted inability to repay - pending the outcome of the trial of cross claims. Whether cross claims arose out of the same matter. Adjudication and arbitration compared. Award enforced - appeal refused. HHJ Peter Coulson. TCC. 9th February 2007
Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd (No2) [2005] EWHC 2963 (TCC)
Dispute, meaning of : crystalisation : Jurisdiction : Relevant Parties : Dispute over valuation of variations : Two or three party dispute? Effect of requirement to negotiate before referral? Attempted use of a pay when paid provision - whether PFI exception applies. Held : MEL & CCL the parties to dispute : Right to refer to adjudication. Role of Dept of Transport discussed. Mr Justice Jackson. 24th November 2005
Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd [2006] EWHC 1505 (TCC)
Dispute : meaning of : Had a dispute as to indirect costs, which had not been quantifies crystallised? Court upheld adjudicator's decision that there was no dispute at that point in time. The claim was subsequently withdrawn - was there a right to do so? Court held that there is nothing in the HGCRA to prevent a party withdrawing a claim from adjudication and it would be wrong to prevent a party resiling from an unpursuable claim. Jackson J. TCC. 13th June 2006
Post adjudication litigation : A number of disputes arising out of the M6 Toll Road project were referred to adjudication. The disputes were considered together in a single action before Mr Justice Jackson. Whilst some of the outcomes changed many did not. This was a very speedy trial given its complexity - no doubt assisted by the recycling of material from the adjudications. The facts also set the scene for Case No2 below. 14th November 2005
Millers v Nobles Construction Ltd [2001] HT 64/00 (TCC)
Withholding notice : Requirement of withholding notice applies not just to adjudication but also to summary judgement, general litigation and arbitration. HHJ Gilliland. TCC. 3rd August 2001.
Mitsui Babcock Energy Services Ltd, [2001] ScotCS 150
Construction Contract : Application for Judicial Review. Boiler plants at a chemical works are by virtue of s105 outside scope of HGCRA.	Outer House. C.S. Lord Hardie. 13th June 2001.
Mivan Ltd v Lighting Technology Projects Ltd [2001]
Double Jeopardy	:Adjudication 1 : Interim payment enforced ? no withholding notice : Adjudication 2 ? counterclaim ? held separate claim not same issue. Reported by Atkinson & Wragge & Co. 9th April 2001
Monavon Construction Ltd v Davenport No. 2 [2006] EWHC 1810 (TCC)
Failure to adjudicate : Costs. Both parties chose litigation over adjudication. In the event the result was a "No Score Draw". Each party to bear its own costs. No adverse consequence for spurning adjudication to be visited on either party. HHJ Thornton. TCC. 17th July 2006
Moorside Investments Ltd v DAG Construction Ltd [2007] Lawtel AC0115735
Insolvency : Winding up petition for non-payment of progress claims : Held : questionable whether HGCRA applied - full terms of contract not written re scope of works and competion date : arguable whether EOT due - arguable counter claim for costs of refinancing and defective works. Petition denied. Chancery Division. Warren J. 1st November 2007
Morrison v AWG Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 6
Conflict of Interests : Bias :(General principles - non-adjudication case) : The trial judge admitted that he would have difficulty ruling on the character of a potential witness : CA held that the option of calling alternative witnesses to save the judge embarassment was prejudicial to the defendants. Accordingly the judge should recuse himself. Mummery LJ, Latham LJ, Carnwath LJ. 20th January 2006.
Mott MacDonald Ltd v London & Regional Properties Ltd [2007] EWHC 1055 (TCC)
Jurisdiction : Late delivery : Contract arose out of a letter of intent, written variation, oral agreements and subsequent practice. Held : No jurisdiction � not a written construction contract s105: Decision withheld pending payment by referring party : Held : Appearance of impartiality s12(a) Scheme � financially beholden to respondent : breach of s19 Scheme - not delivered promptly. Not enforceable. Delivered a day late � fax not used. HHJ Anthony Thornton. 23rd May 2007.
Multiconcept Developments Ltd v Abacus (CI) Ltd [2002] Adj.C.S. 03/22
Stay : Employer sought a stay of enforcement of an adjudicator\'s decision pending outcome of dispute on final account. In the circumstances no special circumstances existed to justify a stay. HHJ David Wilcox. TCC. 22nd March 2002.
Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No1) [2007] EWHC 236 (TCC)
Disclosure : admissibility : 3rd party settlement provisions : Late application to appeal. Whether time was at large qua contractor / subcontractor as determined at adjudication. Whether terms of a settlement agreement involving the same issue admissible and subject to disclosure. Held No : Late application to appeal. Application heard but failed on the merits. Note : The "time at large" issue ongoing. Jackson J. TCC. 8th February 2007
Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No2) [2007] EWHC 447 (TCC)
Time at large : Held : Not in the circumstances. Where a contract provides for notices for EOTs such notices must be provided - a default by the employer does not automatically put time at large. Contract provisions do not however inhibit a court or adjudicator from determining further extensions of time. Application to appeal refused. Mr Justice Jackson. TCC. 6th March 2007
Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Mott Macdonald Ltd [2007] EWHC 20 (TCC)
Jurisdiction - Declaration : Whether adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine meaning of documents contract required to be made available to main contractor post novation of design contract from employer and whether remedy available by summary judgement in event of non-compliance. Held : Jurisdiction - decaration granted : but question of compliance not amenable to summary judgement - issue set down for trial. Jackson J. TCC. 10th January 2007.
Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v West India Quay Development Co (Eastern) Ltd [2006] EWHC 1569 (TCC)
Bias : Due Process : M relied upon an impacted as planned analysis to extablish three EOTs. WIQ relied on an as-built windows analysis in defence. Whilst adopting a cautionary approach to the ISP analysis the adjudicator awared ?1.1M re EOTs. Enforcement resisted. Claimed Balfour Beatty v Lambeth bias in that adjudicator made his own analysis - without putting it to the parties. Held : No - adjudicator ruled on the evidence. Enforcement ordered. Ramsay J. TCC. 8th June 2006
Multiplex v Cleveland Bridge No1 [2006] EWHC 1341 (TCC)
Repudiatory Breach : Non-payment of a certified sum for bona-fide reasons will not automatically translate into a repudiatory breach simply because an adjudicator subsequently finds monies due under the certificate. Jackson J. TCC. 6th June 2006.
Multiplex v Cleveland Bridge No2 [2007] EWHC 145 (TCC)
11th preliminary issue : viz which party was responsible under the terms of the Supplemental Agreement for the cost of temporary works for the stadium roof. Court found in favour of Cleveland Bridge. Mr Justice Jackson. TCC. 31st January 2007.
Multiplex v Cleveland Bridge No3 [2007] EWHC 659 (TCC)
Application for costs following this court\\\'s judgment in the second round of the litigation between Multiplex and Cleveland Bridge. Power of the court to award interim costs in relation to a distinct aspect of litigation without regard to the question of success in relation to the entire litigation - which is on-goping. Mr Justice Jackson. 12th March 2007
Multiplex v Cleveland Bridge No4 [2008] EWHC 231 (TCC)
Application to amend : On going saga. Mr Justice Jackson. 7th February 2008.
Multiplex v Cleveland Bridge No5 [2008] EWHC 569 (TCC)
Partially successful application to amend pleadings. Mr Justice Jackson. 19th March 2008
Multiplex v Cleveland Bridge No6 [2008] EWHC 2220 (TCC) Final chapter of the ongoing saga : determination of the final account. Mr Justice Jackson. TCC. 29th September 2008.
Multiplex v Cleveland Bridge No7 [2008] EWHC 2280 (TCC) Costs judgment : Final element of the Wembly Statium saga. Mr Justice Jackson. 29th September 2008
Multiplex v Cleveland Bridge [2006] EWCA Civ 1834
Application to appeal Jackson J\'s decision on Issue 4, the construction of a supplemental agreement, granted. Trial to follow. May LJ. Smith LJ. CA. 20th December 2006.
Multiplex v Cleveland Bridge [2007] EWCA Civ 1372
CA. Pill LJ; May LJ; Smith DBE LJ. 21st December 2007
Multiplex v Cleveland Bridge [2008] EWCA Civ 133
Appeal against costs in previous actions before Jackson J. May LJ; Smith LJ. 6th February 2008
Murray Building Services v Spree [2004] TCC4804
Faxed instruction to start work without statement of price insufficient to amount to a Written Contract for HGCRA. HHJ Raynor. 30th July 2004.
Naga On Building Services Ltd v Euston Hotel Ltd [2000] Tecbar
Slip Rule : Court declined to follow the ruling in Bloor Construction v Bowmer & Kirkland and permit an adjudicator to amend a decision. No transcript or further details available. 1st May 2000.
Nageh v Giddings [2006] EWHC 3240 (TCC)
Application to set aside a default enforcement judgement of a default adjudication decision. Assertion that notice of adjudication and subsequent enforcement action sent to wrong address. In both situations adjudicator and solicitors sent notices to two addresses in compliance with CPR rules. Enforcement judgement upheld. Rhode Construction v Markhan-David considered. Coulson J. TCC. 8th December 2006
Naylor (t/a Powerfloated Concrete Floors) v Greenacres Curling Ltd [2001] ScotCS 163
Double jeopardy	: Attempt to stop an adjudication on a matter already ruled on in adjudication failed : party sought an interdict but should have applied for Judicial Review. Outer House C.S. Lord Bonomy. 26th June 2001
Nolan Davis Ltd v Steven P Catton (No1) [2000] EWHC 590
Jurisdiction on jurisdiction : Parties gave adjudicator right to decide jurisdiction : even if wrong the court would not interfere : Likewise on costs : Northern Developments v Nichol. HHJ David Wilcox. 22nd February 2000.
Nolan Davis Ltd v Steven P Catton (No2) [2001] EWHC HT99-267
Set aside. Interpretation of compromise agreement setting aside previous enforcement judgement incorporated into Tomlin Order. Application for rectification of terms of Tomlin Order refused. HHJ David Wilcox. 6th March 2001.
Nordot Eng. Services Ltd v Siemens plc [2000] EWHC SF 00901 (TCC) 16/00
Voluntary adjudication	: If parties contract into adjudication, the courts will enforce the outcome even though it is otherwise outside the HGCRA. HHJ Gilliland. 14th April 2000.
Northern Developments Ltd v. J & J Nichol [2000] EWHC TCC 176
Jurisdiction Internal : A repudiation of contract matter not covered by notice : Adjudicator had no jurisdiction : No power to award costs unless conferred by parties. HHJ Bowsher. 24th January 2000.	Norwest Holst Ltd v Carfin Developments Ltd [2008] ScotCS CSOH_138
Application for summary enforcement of sum due under a certified stage payment under the ICE 5th ed form, 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. Lord Glennie. Outer House Court of Session. 18th September 2008.
Norwest Holst Ltd v Danieli Davy Distington [2007] All ER (D) 120 (Jul)
Construction Contract s105 : A contract for the design and construction of a casting pit was essentially a construction operation and thus within the HGCRA - and not covered within the exemption for plant. TCC. Ramsey J. 9th July. 2007
Nottingham Community Housing Assoc v Powerminster Ltd [2000] BLR 309
Construction Contract : Maintenance of gas appliance in community owned residential properties is within HGCRA. HHJ Dyson. TCC. 30th June 2000.
Oakley (William) v Airclear Environmental Ltd [2001] Ch.Div.
Construction Contract	: It was unclear whether NAM/T or NAM/SC contract applied : Adjudicators decision invalid and therefore unenforceable by statutory demand. HHJ Etherton. 3th October 2001.
Orange EBS Ltd. v ABB Ltd. [2003] EWHC 1187 (TCC)
Meaning of Dispute : A month had elapsed from service of claim to issue of notice of intention : in absence of a response a dispute had chrystalised. HHJ Frances Kirkham. 22nd May 2003.
Outwing Construction Ltd v. H. Randell & Son Ltd [1999] EWHC TCC 248
Stay of action : Even though payment normally renders enforcement action unnecessary, the court can still consider question of costs. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. 15th March 1999
Owen Pell Ltd v Bindi (London) Ltd [2008] EWHC 1420 (TCC)
Expert determination in lieu of adjudication. Determination not subject to review by the courts in the absence of bias where decision agreed to be final and binding. HHJ Frances Kirkham Birmngham TCC. 19th May 2008.
Palmac Contracting Ltd. v Park Lane Estates Ltd. [2005] EWHC 919 (TCC)
Application Procedure : There is no requirement that the Notice of Intention and the Application for Appointment be carried out sequentially. HHJ Frances Kirkham. 22nd March 2005.
Withholding notice : No effective withholding notice issued : Scaffolding is a construction operation : A court can deliver a declaration as to jurisdiction. TCC HHJ Thornton. 6th August 1999
Pan Interiors Ltd (In the matter of) [2005] EWHC 3241 (Ch)
Statutory demand in lieu of adjudication reference : In the absence of realistic defence injunction restraining presentation of petition denied. Warren J. Chancery Division. 14th July 2005.
Parsons Plastics (Research and Development) Ltd. v Purac Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 459
Compliance with s108 and scheme : Despite parties agreement that contract compliant ? adjudicator ruled non compliant : Held could do so even though not point not argued by parties. Appeal Failed. Pill LJ, Mummery LJ, Latham LJ.12th April 2002.
Parsons Plastics v Purac Ltd [2001] EWHC (TCC)
Compliance with s108 and scheme : Despite parties agreement that contract compliant ? adjudicator ruled non compliant : Held could do so even though not point not argued by parties. HHJ Francis Kirkham. 13th August 2001.
Patrick PA Birchall v West Morland Car Sales Ltd [2001] (TCC)
Construction Contract HRA : Written contract through correspondence complied with Act : HRA not applicable to adjudication semble RJT at first instance.	HHJ MacKay. 2nd November 2001.
Paul Boardwell t/a Boardwell Construction v k3D Property Partnership Ltd [2006] Adj.C.S. 04/21
Application for summary enforcement refused. The adjudication decision noted that whilst only a limited number of matters were addressed by the decision all other matters had been considered. The court held that the adjudicator had failed to deal with all aspects of the defence. The catch all phrase "all other matters had been considered" was insufficient to establish that this was in fact the case. HHJ Raynor. 21st April 2006.TCC. Salford.
Paul Jensen Ltd v Stavely Industries [2001] WN 101245
Adjudicator?s fees : Adjudicator resigned on basis of lack of jurisdiction and sued for fees. Defendant claimed he should not have resigned : Fees upheld. Wigan County Ct. Mr District Judge Donelly. 27th September 2001.
Paul Thomas Construction Ltd v Hyland [2000] CILL 6/0 /1743
Indemnity costs less ADR cost : Cost hearing on failed s24/25 CPR applications by a domestic house builders who provided no final account and refused to wait for D?s valuation report. Offer of adjudication rejected - though adjudicator had agreed to act. Adjudication considered a viable ADR and costs accordingly for unreasonable behavious in refusing to either adjudicate or mediate. HHJ Wilcox. 8th March 2000. PC Harrington Contractors Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd [2007] EWHC 2833 (TCC)
Certificate : Valuation of works & EOT. A progress certificate for works done did not establish that a sum was due for the purposes of adjudication � since there is scope for deductions from that sum. Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. TCC. 30th November 2007
Construction contract	(appealed to CA): Was the contract a JCT or bespoke ? Matter was never settled, so an unwritten quasi-contract existed ? which is outside scope of HGCRA. May LJ, Lady Justice Hale, Mr Justice Hooper. 21st November 2003.
Pegram Shopfitters v Tally Weijl [2003] Adj.L.R. 02/14
Construction contract. Was the contract a JCT or bespoke ? Matter was never settled, so an unwritten quasi-contract existed ? which is outside scope of HGCRA. HHJ Thornton. TCC. 14th February 2003.
Picardi (t/a Picardi Architects) v Cuniberti & Anor [2002] EWHC 2923 (TCC)
Compliance with Scheme :Residential work : Claimant failed to establish an agreement to adjudicate : Obiter ? an adjudication clause in a contract must be highlighted ? UCTA?77. HHJ Toulmin. 19th December 2002.
Pierce Design International Ltd v Johnston [2007] EWHC 1691 (TCC)
Determination and payment of sums previously due : Court analysed Melville Dundas v Wimpey which held that JCT clauses 27.6.5.1 complies with s110 / 111 HGCRA : then held on the facts that the sums were due 28 days before determination and had been unreasonably withheld in that there were no withholding notices issued. What is unreasonable must be judged at time of withholding not in light of subsequent events. Summary judgement granted. HHJ Peter Coulson. 17th July 2007.
Prentice Island v. Castle Contracting [2003] ScotSC 61
Adjudicators fees : Assertion of breach of Cl9 provision - whether dispute settled by previous adjudication? Adjudicator held No. Was adjudicator entitled to fees cl25? YES. Sheriff Principal R.A.Dunlop QC. 15th December
Pring & St Hill Ltd v C J Hafner (t/a Southern Erectors) [2002] EWHC 1775 (TCC)
Bias:Same adjudicator acted on 4 related adjudication involving different parties. Ask to step down. Refused. Prior knowledge etc caused prejudice. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. 31st July 2002
Pro-Design v New Millenium Experience Co Ltd [2001] LV 190224 (TCC)
Enforcement and fraud : A claim that would otherwise be impeachable failed because the court considered that the underlying contract was fraudulently procured. HHJ Mackay. 29th September 2001.
Project Consultancy Group v Trustees of The Gray Trust [1999] BLR 377
Construction contract : Even if adjudicator given power to determine jurisdiction, if the decision is wrong because it was a pre-HGCRA contract enforcement may be denied. QBD. HHJ Dyson. 16th July 1999.
Purac Ltd v. Byzak Ltd [2004] ScotCS 247
Retention monies : Action for immediate payment. Release as between members of consortium following certification and payment made by client : VA Tech Wabag UK Ltd v Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd distinguished and error corrected. Summary enforcement resisted on grounds of arguable issue of defects. HGCRA not applicable by virtue of s105. Lord Drummond. Outer House Court of Session. 12th November 2004.
Pynes Three Ltd v Transco Ltd [2005] EWHC 2445 TCC
Freezing Order and Adjudication : Successful application for a freezing order in support of a future adjudication. Thornton HHJ : TCC. 22nd July 2005
Quality Street Properties Ltd v Elmwood [2002] ScotCS 258/2002 S
Concurrent actions : The commencement of court action, without mutual waiver of right to adjudicate, leaves other party with right to adjudicate in the interim period. Sheriff Principal Edward F Bowen QC. 8th February 2002.
Quarmby Construction Co Ltd v Larraby Land Ltd [2003] Adj.C.S. 04/14
Adjudication post settlement agreement. Did the adjudicator have jurisdiction? Held : The settlement did not embrace liability for extension of time. Adjudicator had jurisdiction. Enforcement ordered. HHJ Grenfell. Leeds Technology and Construction Court. 14th April 2003.
Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Construction Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1737
Unsuccessful appeal against the decision of Jackson J refusing summary enforcement of adjudication where adjudicator had declined to consider a dispute regarding an application for an EOT which was brought on different grounds to a prior application : adjudicator erred in assuming double jeopardy. This was a distinct and separate dispute - not a replica of the first dispute. May LJ; Dyson LJ; Smith LJ. 20th December 2006
Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Contractors Ltd [2006] EWHC 174 (TCC)
Double jeopardy : Contractor unsuccessfully submitted a dispute regarding EOT to adjudication because the certifying architect under a JCT 1998 had failed to deal with it. The Claimant employer successfully submitted a LAD dispute to adjudication. The defence of entitlement to EOT's being rejected as already settled at a prior adjudication. Enforcement was refused because the grounds for EOT were new and distinct. Adjudicator should have considered them. HHJ Jackson. TCC. 2nd February 2006.
R C Pillar & Son v The Camber [2007] EWHC 1626 (TCC)
Jurisdiction : Defence to enforcement : Whether a contract : whether replaced & reference under wrong contract : crystallisation : ad hoc reference - counterclaim & submission to adjudication : jurisidiction over jurisdiction. HHJ Thornton. 15th March 2007
R. Durtnell & Sons Ltd. v Kaduna Ltd. [2003] EWHC 517 (TCC)
Meaning of Dispute : Extension of Time (EOT) subject to architect?s determination under JCT : Since time for determination had not elapsed no dispute had arisen. HHJ Richard Seymour. 19th March 2003.	R.G.Carter Ltd v Edmund Nuttall Ltd [2000] EWHC HT 00 230 (TCC) ; [2002] BLR 312
Meaning of Dispute : Can an adjudicator deal with additional matters not contained in the notice of adjudication? Full referral needed : Court will not interfere with appointment and stay adjudication even though defendant objects ? but possible that enforcement may not subsequently be granted. HHJ Thornton. 21st June 2000.
R.G.Carter Ltd v Edmund Nuttall Ltd [2002] EWHC HT 02-121 (TCC) : BLR 359
Meaning of Dispute : Can an adjudicator deal with additional matters not contained in the notice of adjudication? Full referral needed : Court will not interfere with appointment and stay adjudication even though defendant objects ? but possible that enforcement may not subsequently be granted. HHJ Bowsher. 18th April 2002.
Rainford House Ltd v. Cadogan Ltd [2001] EWHC TCC 18
Insolvency : Enforcing party in receivership : Court entitled to stay enforcement. HHJ Richard Seymour. 9th February 2001.
Rankilor Dr : Perco Engineering Service Ltd v Igoe (M) Ltd [2006] Adj.L.R. 01/27
Natural Justice : Expert knowledge : Enforcement action. Issue : whether losses due to unexpected ground conditions. The claimant (here the defendant) failed to prove normal conditions. Adjudicator\'s conclusion as to the cause of the loss (based on the evidence) differed from those of the parties. Held : adjudicator entitled to conclude ground conditions unexpected. No breach of rules of natural justice. Both decisions enforced. HHJ Gilliland. TCC. Salford District Registry. 27th January 2006.
Re A Company: A.M.Environmental Services Ltd (No 5606 of 2001) [2001] Ch.Div.
Insolvency : Petition for winding up refused : The petitioner had not issued a withholding notice against the Company - so potentially, pending outcome of this dispute the company might be in credit to the petitioner. Mr Justice Hart. 14th November 2001.
Re A Company (1299 of 2001) [2001]
Withholding notice : Certified payment : no withholding notice : Claimant had right to assert debt and proceed to motion for winding up : Set off and counterclaim refused. David Donaldson Q.C. 15th May 2001.
Redworth Construction Ltd v Brookdale Healthcare Ltd [2006] EWHC 1994 (TCC)
Written Contract : Adjudication decision non-enforceable - no written contract on the grounds argued before the adjudicator for the purposes of s107 HGCRA. RJT v D.M.Engineering considered. Havery J. TCC. 31st July 2006.
Reinwood Ltd v L Brown & Sons Ltd [2008] UKHL 12
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. Lords Hope; Scott ; Walker ; Brown : Neuberger. 20th February 2008.
Security : Arrestment : Money paid in pursuance of an adjudicator?s decision seized/arrested as security for other claims : Held did not defeat purpose of adjudication. Lanark Sheriff Court Sheriff Gilmour. 12th March 1999. Appeal to Sheriff Principal Cox. 31st March 1999.
Rhode v Markham-David (No 2) [2007] EWHC 1408 (TCC)
Validity of default adjudication where the defendant recieved no notice of the process. Held : The adjudication process is invalid - so the adjudication decision is unenforceable. Application dismissed with costs - following the previous determination of Jackson J setting aside a default enforcement judgment in 2006. Thornton J. TCC. 26th March 2007.
Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd No 2 [2007] EWHC 2507 (TCC)
Interest post enforcement. Interest, post enforcement runs from the date of the court judgement, not from the date when monies were due under the contract � which matter was one for the adjudicator, not the court. Mr Justice Akenhead. TCC. 30th October 2007
Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd [2007] EWHC 2421 (TCC)
Meaning of dispute - Crystalisation. Following practical completion Ringway submitted interim application No11 which included claims arising out of an asserted EOT and variations. V prevaricated over an extended period of time and a number of attempts were made to engage in negotiations. Eventually R commenced adjudication asserting that under the contract terms payment under an application became due in the absence of withholding notices. The adjudicator awarded the application sum. Here, V resisted payment on the grounds that no dispute had crystallised or alternatively that the adjudicator�s task was to determine the final account. The court agreed with the adjudicator that the dispute was about non-payment of an interim account and enforced the decision.Mr Justice Akenhead. TCC. 23rd October 2007
Ritchie Brothers (PWC) Ltd v. David Philp (Commercials) Ltd [2004] ScotCS 94
Late Decision : Due to delivery problems with referral document adjudicator started the process late : Consequently, his decision was delivered late if time started to run from the day the Post Office first attempted to deliver the documents. The court held that the decision was within the jurisdiction of the adjudicator and enforceable. No protest or other referral for a new appointment had been made. Outer House C.S. Lord Eassie. 14th April 2004.
Ritchie Brothers Ltd v. David Philp Ltd [2005] ScotCS CSIH_32
Late Decision : Due to delivery problems with referral document adjudicator started the process late : Consequently, his decision was delivered late if time started to run from the day the Post Office first attempted to deliver the documents. Reversing the court at first instance, held on appeal that in the absence of an extension the adjudicator's jurisdiction expired after 28 days. The decision was not therefore enforceable. Second Div. Inner House C.S. Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Abernethy, Lord Nimmo Smith. 24th March 2005.
RJT Consulting Engineers Ltd v DM Engineering Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 270
Successful appeal : The essential elements of the contract relevant to the dispute subsequently reduced to writing. Mre fact that some minor facets of the contract not in writing not significant enought to prevent compliance with requirements of s107 ? declaration of compliance granted. Auld LJ, Ward LJ, Robert Walker LJ. 8th March 2002.
RJT Consulting Engineers Ltd v DM Engineering Ltd [2002] BLR 217
Declaration sought to confirm a Construction Contract in existence : Initial oral contract supported by subsequent correspondence insufficient to fulfill the requirements of s107 - elements of the contract not in writing? declaration of compliance refused. HHJ Mackay. TCC. 9th May 2001.
Robert McAlpine (Sir) v Pring St Hill [2001] EWHC 779 (TCC)
Enforcement of decision	: R won an adjudication against P for damage : P commenced an adjudication against R for non payment and sought a stay pending decision. Failed. HHJ Moseley. 2nd October 2001.
Rohde Construction v Markham-David [2006] EWHC 814 (TCC)
Default Judgment : Should a default adjudication decision be enforced? Notice, referral and appointment not communicated to defendant. In the circumstances there was a real possibility of the claim being succeffully defended. Decision set aside and case set down for trial. TCC. Mr Justice Jackson. 20th March 2006
ROK Build Ltd v Harris Wharf Development Company Ltd [2006] EWHC 3573 (TCC)
Jurisdiction : Legal Personality : Identify of contractor changed during project - identify of subsidiary etc confused - resulting in an arguable case that adjudicator had no jurisdiction (though identify not argued in adjudication). Meaning of Dispute - existence of dispute considered : Final Account Dispute - Cl 30 JCT 1998 with contractors design. There was clearly a dispute. HHJ Wilcox. TCC. 15th December 2006
Roscco Civ Eng v Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedic [2004] HT-03-190 (TCC)
Having conceeded the current trading name of the other party at adjudication it was not open to the defendant to resist payment because that was not the name used in the original contract. Deputy Judge Mr Recorder Dermod O?Brien QC. 15th July 2004.
RSL (South West) Ltd. v Stansell Ltd. [2003] EWHC 1390 (TCC)
Procedural Impropriety : An adjudicator relied upon the report not viewed by the defendant : Unfair : Severance of elements of decision not permitted. HHJ Richard Seymour. 16th June 2003.
RSL Southwest Ltd v Stansell Ltd [2003] EWCA 1319 : Adjudication.co.uk
Application for appeal against the decision of Seymour J where the decision of an adjudicator was not enforced on the grounds of breach of due process granted. Whilst the respondent?s case against cherrypicking enforceable elements out of an otherwise unenforceable decision was strong, this was an important issue that the CA should consider. (In the event it appears that the appeal was not pursued). Morritt Sir Andrew VC. Gibson LJ Peter. 4th September 2003.
Witholding Notices : Sum incorrectly certified as due by architect : Client refused to pay : no withholding notice issued : Held : Must pay and subequently could seek to reclaim in court action. Scheimann LJ. Sedley LJ, Jacob L.J. 12th November 2003.
Samuel Thomas Construction Ltd v Bick & Bick [2000] Exeter ZN 900750
Construction Contract :Conversion of a barn to a residence still a residential occupier contract even though occupation not possible till completion. Outside HGCRA. HHJ Overend. 28th January 2000.
Binding Adjudication : Non-Construction case - non-HGCRA case - on nature of binding adjudication and jurisdiction of adjudicator. Discusses right to retentions. Lord Bracadale. Outer House Court of Session. 29th July 2004.
Scrabster Harbour Trust v Mowlem plc [2005] ScotCS CSOH_44
Finality : Compliance with requirements of Clause 66(6) ICE 1999 in order to submit dispute subject to an adjudication decision to arbitration. Outer House C.S. Lord Clark. 23rd March 2005.
Notice of arbitration : Contract provided that arbitration notice required within 3 months or adjudication decision became final. At first instance Lord Clarke held notice to be adequate. On appeal, validity of notice upheld on different grounds, namely that the terms were too imprecise to require strict adherence. Lord President; Lady Cosgrove; Sir David Edward, Q.C. First Division, Inner House, Court of Session. 22nd February 2006.
Shalson v D.F.Keane Ltd [2003] EWHC 599 (Ch)
Insolvency : Statutory Demand : Should a statutory demand, as a form of commencement of legal procedings be subject to a stay to arbitration or alternatively to adjudication under the HGCRA? Held : No : Applicant cannot sit back and refrain from instituting ajudication/arbitration procedings yet procure a stay (discretionary in the circumstances) against the statutory demand. Mr Justice Blackburne. Ch.Div. 21st February 2003.
Shepherd Construction v Mecright Ltd [2000] BLR 489
Construction Dispute : Factors which might vitiate a contract, eg duress, mistake etc are not construction contract disputes. Was a settlement due to duress ? Litigate for answer.HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. TCC. 27th July 2000. Sherwood & Casson Ltd v Mackenzie [2000] Adj.L.R. 11/30
Errors of law / jurisdiction : Errors of jurisdiction invalidate an adjudication decision : a wrong decision does not and will be enforced pending final settlement by court etc. HHJ Anthony Thornton. 30th November 1999	Shimizu Europe Ltd. v Automajor Ltd [2002] EWHC 1571 (TCC)
Errors of Adjudicator :Parties cannot cherry pick parts of a decision ? it applies all or nothing : If adjudicator gets damages award wrong ? challenge in arbitration. HHJ Richard Seymour. 17 January 2002.
Shimizu Europe Ltd. v LBJ Fabrications Ltd. [2003] EWHC 1229 (TCC)
Set off	:DOM1 permits an award to be set off against a subsequent claim and gives an adjudicator?s power to rule on his own jurisdiction. HHJ Frances Kirkham. 29 May 2003.
Sim Group Ltd v Neil Jack [2002] ScottCS 2705
End of jurisdiction : Once an arbiter delivers his final decision he becomes functus officio and cannot without fresh appointment go on to determine further issues. Outer House C.S. Lord Clarke. 5th June 2002.
Simons Construction Ltd. v Aardvark Developments Ltd. [2003] EWHC 2474 (TCC)
Late decision : A late decision was upheld because neither party had repudiated the appointment either expressly or impliedly by calling for another adjudicator. HHJ Richard seymour. 29th October 2003.
Sindall Ltd v Abner Solland [2002] Con LRHT 01/129
Meaning of Dispute : Entitlement to an EOT was an integral issue of whether or not contract lawfully terminated and thus within jurisdiction of adjudicator.HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. 15th June 2001.
Skanska Construction UK Ltd v. The ERDC Group Ltd [2002] ScotCS 307
Double Jeopardy : Application to stay adjudication on grounds of trying same dispute : Court held, whilst same contract, issues concerned different stages of contract. Outer House C.S. Lady Paton. 28th November 2002.
Withholding notice : Payment ordered by adjudicator because of absence of withholding notice : Held : Must prove entitlement : Adjudicator wrong but still enforced. Outer House C.S. Lord MacFadyen. 27th June 2001.
Solland International Ltd. v Daraydan Holdings Ltd. [2002] EWHC 220 (TCC)
Set off	: Could an adjudication decision be set off against liquidated damages claim during enforcement proceedings. Held No. Compare Isobars. HHJ Richard Seymour. 15th February 2002.
South West Contractors Ltd v Birakos Enterprises Ltd [2006] EWHC 2794 (TCC)
Natural Justice : Failure to consider defence : Two related claims in respect of a Management Contract and Managment Profit Contract - in relation to the same works. Defence of failure to mitigate fully considered in first adjudication, but not expanded on in second adjudication. Court held the matter was fully considered. Summary enforcement ordered. His Honour Judge David Wilcox : 7th November 2006
Specialist Ceiling Contractors v. ZVI Construction [2004] 4T-0006 1 (TCC)
Without prejudice : Claimant disclosed existence of but not details of a rejected without prejudice offer : Held ? knowledge alone of offers does not result in bias.	HHJ S.P.Grenfell. 27th February 2004.	St. Andrews Bay Development Ltd v. HBG Management Ltd [2003] ScotCS 103
Late decision : Despite being two days late court enforced decision ? nothing significant enough to render it a nullity. Outer House C.S. Lord Wheatley. 4th April 2003.
Legal expertise of arbiter : Can an arbiter rely on a precedent not put to the parties? Yes providing it does not lead to severe injustice. (Employment tribunal case - but equally relevant to adjudicators and arbitrators).Ward LJ, Buxton LJ, Mance LJ.25th July 2003.
Staveley Industries Plc v Odebrecht Oil & Gas [2001] TCC
Construction Contract : Land below watermark is not land within England, Wales or Scotland, so sea bed construction is outside HGCRA. HHJ Richard Havery. 28th February 2001.
Steil Facilities Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd [2001] Scot SC 203
Construction contract payment dispute. An arrestment in support of litigation, arbitration or adjudication will not be granted as and until a dispute as to whether or not the claimant is a party to the contract giving rise to the claim is determined in the claimant\'s favour. Lord Menzies. 8th August 2001.
Stiell Ltd v Riema Control Systems Ltd [2000] ScotCS 174
Security : Arrestment : Money arrested as a security by the court even though the sum seized exceeded the amount the adjudicator had held to be due. Not oppressive. Extra Div. Inner House.CS. Lord Prosser, Lord Philip,Lord Caplan. 23rd June 2000
Stirling v. Westminster Properties Scotland Ltd [2007] ScotCS CSOH_117
Meaning of dispute : Work carried out by company promoter - contract concluded pre-incorporation. Following failure to honour applicantion No 6 post certification, in the absence of a withholding notice, notice of adjudication given first in companys name then later in promoters name Enforcement Act : defence - no dispute. Held : crystallisation occurred by date of final notice. Lord Drummon Young : Outer House, Court of Session. 9th July 2007.
Stratfield Saye Estate Trustees v AHL Construction Ltd [2004] EWHC 3286 (TCC)
Jurisdiction - enforcement of adjudicator's decision. Examination of what amounts to a contract in writing for the purposes of the HGCRA. Mr Justice Jackson. 6th December 2004.
Strathmore B.S. Ltd v C.S.Greig [2000] ScotCS CA 18/00
Withholding notice : A withholding notice must come after, not before an application and must be in writing in order to be effective. Outer House C.S. Lord Hamilton. 18th May 2000.
Insolvent Debtor : Consent to adjudicate against : Once a firm enters into administration leave of the court is required to commence an adjudication. CH.Div. HHJ Behrens. 7th April 1999.
Stubbs Rich Architects v W H Tolley Ltd [2001] BP001105
Adjudicator?s fees : Recorder?s decision that adjudicator?s fees were unreasonable overturned : immunity in absence of bad faith. Prevents courts nitpicking fees. Gloucester County Ct. Mr Recorder Lane. 8th August 2001.
Surplant Ltd. v Ballast Plc [2002] Adj.L.R. 10/28
Dispute : meaning of : when must a dispute crystallise in order to refer to adjudication? Before the notice of intention or before the referral? Liverpool District Registry, TCC. MacKay J. 28th October 2002. T & T Fabrications Ltd v Hubbard Architectural Metal Work Ltd [2008] EWHC B7 (TCC)
Assignment of rights of suit under a construction contract betweem 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. Wilcox J. 21st April 2008.
Jurisdiction, Enforcement, Insolvency : Application for payment disputed and submitted to adjudication. Could the adjudicator consider validity of determination? YES : Defects not argued within the adjudication process not now relevant to enforcement. Lay Claimant?s poor financial state not relevant ? no change since contract entered into.	HHJ Christopher Clarke. 25th November 2005.
Thomas Vale Construction Plc v Brookside Syston Ltd [2006] EWHC 3637 (TCC)
Witholding notice : Validity. Following adjudication of a final account TVC submitted application for interim payment. BSL issued a withholding notice, challenged here on basis that it sought a set off against adjudication decision. Held : Final account does not give rise to a right to immediate payment. Outstanding snagging meant that sums could continue to be withheld. HHJ Francis Kirkham. 14th November 2006
Jurisdiction - legal personality to litigate: Adjudicator?s power to determine jurisdiction : a company not the respondent, a director of the company, was the contracting party. Wrong respondent. Simon Brown LJ, Judge LJ, Johathan Parker LJ.21st October 2003.
Tim Butler Contractors Ltd v Merewood Homes Ltd [2000] TCC 10/01
Construction Contract : Only a court can finally determine whether or not a contract is a construction contract but an adjudicator can determine terms of the contract. HHJ Gilliland. 12th April 2000.
Total M&E Services v ABB Technologies [2002] EWHC 248
Costs of representation	: Misdescription of party not significant : No provision allowing recovery of legal costs : Scope of work broadended ? not variations. HHJ David Wilcox. 26th February 2002.
Treasure & Son Ltd v Dawes [2007] EWHC 2420 (TCC)
Written contract � variations � signature on decision : inability to repay. Enforcement application : whether variation of a contract impacted upon its status and jurisdiction of adjudicator � here a non HGCRA adjudication � held adjudicator had jurisdiction : whether a failure to sign a decision renders it unenforceable � held � signature not a requirement. No stay allowed on grounds of insolvency in the circumstances of the case. Mr Justice Akenhead. TCC. 25th October 2007
Treasure & Son Ltd v Dawes [2008] EWHC 2181 (TCC)
Judgment debt : Is the debt discharge if paid by a third party - here a member of the debtor\'s family? Held : Yes. Mr Justice Coulson. 15th September 2008
Trentham (Barrie) v. Lawfield Investments [2002] ScotCS 126
Stay of Action : Counterclaim : Defendant sought to stay enforcement pending counterclaim because of pending bankruptcy. Prima facie case not made: stay refused. Outer House S.C. Lord Dummond Young. 3rd May 2002.
Triodos Bank v Dobbs [2004] EWHC 845 (Ch)
Guarantee : Adjudication decision. Can a termporarily final adjudication decision in a debtor's favour reduce the trading debts of the debtor's company and thus affect the right of creditors to call in loans? Mr Justice Lewison. Chancery Division. 19th April 2004.
Trustees of Harbour of Peterhead v Lilley Construction [2003] CA 229/02
Temporary finality : There is no conflict between ICE 6 arbitration provisions and adjudication which is temporarily final pending final settlement by arbitration.Outer House C.S. Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. 1st April 2003.
Try Construction Ltd v Eton Town House Group Ltd [2003] EWHC 60
Delegation : Expert report : Parties consented to commissioning of a programming report regarding Extension of Time and L&D ? Held : adjudicator allowed to rely on the report. HHJ David Wilcox - for HHJ Richard Seymour. 28th January 2003.
Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 286
Fire : Insurance : recovery of adjudication award. Successful appeal : sums paid out pursuant to an adjudication recoverable under terms of insurance policy. MR. Rix LJ; Keene LJ. 2nd April 2008
Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd [[2007] EWHC B7 (TCC)
Fire : Post adjudication challenge to decision that contractor not liable to loss due to fire where the contract required the employer to provide joint insurance against the risk and had failed to do so. Co-operative Retail Services Ltd v Taylor Young Partnership Ltd [2002] applied. Gilliland J. TCC. Salford. 29th June 2007.
Universal Music Operations Ltd v Flairnote Ltd [2000] HTT 00/224 (TCC)
Legal personality : Defendants unsuccessfully asserted that their agent was in fact the Principal and so they were not parties to the construction contract. HHJ David Wilcox. TCC. 24th August 2000 VA Tech Wabag UK Ltd v Morgan Ltd [2002] CA 46/02
Joint venture : Two companies undertook a joint venture 66/33 with agreement to pay pro-rata interim payments from employer : One party tried to delay distribution. Outer House C.S. Lord Dummond Young. 30th May 2002.
Van Oord ACZ Ltd v. Port of Mostyn Ltd [2003] BM350030 TCC
Time bar for arbitration : ICC Clauses 64-66 Time bar 3 months to apply for arbitration post adjudication : Served 3 days early but to wrong address - even though a valid address for the defendant: Held ? validly served and if not the court would have granted an extension of time in the circumstances. HHJ Frances Kirkham. 10th September 2003.
Vaughan Eng. Ltd v Hinkins & Frewin Ltd [2003] ScotCS 56
Jurisdiction : Adjudicator declined to deal with a counterclaim for set off : On enforcement court refused to apply ultra vires for failure to exhaust jurisdiction. Outer House C.S. Lord Clarke. 3rd March 2003.
Vaultrise Ltd. v Paul Cook [2004] 2 BLISS 23
Natural Justice	: Defendant asserted breach of natural justice because he was not represented at an adjudication hearing ? solicitor unavailable : Held : Adjudicator had right to insist on going ahead to ensure decision within the 28 day deadline of HGCRA ? defendant could have secured alternative counsel. 26th April 2004.
VGC Construction Ltd v Jackson Civil Engineering Ltd [2008] EWHC 2082 (TCC)
Jurisdiction : 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. Mr Justice Akenhead : 15th August 2008
VHE Construction plc v. RBSTB Trust Co Ltd [2000] EWHC TCC 181
Withholding notice : Defendant cannot exercise a set off against a payment other than by raising it as a defence during the adjudication : not available against the award. HHJ John Hicks. 13th January 2000.
Vitpol Building Service v Samen [2008] EWHC 2283 (TCC) 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. Held : Issue to preceed to trial. Mr Justice Coulson. 16th September 2008
Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v DMW Developments Ltd [2008] EWHC 3139 (TCC)
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. Mr Justice Coulson. 11th December 2008
Watkin Jones v Lidl UK GMBH No1 [2001] HT 02/121
Application for stay of a counterclaim to arbitration : Enforcement of adjudication decision. An attempt to resist enforcement on the basis that an application for an interim payment was in reality an application on final account, where the contractual mechanism for such payments had not yet been fulfilled thereby preventing a dispute from crystallising failed. HHJ Moseley. 21th December 2001.
Watkin Jones v Lidl UK GMBH No2 [2001] HT 01/465 (TCC)
Stay of adjudication : A failed attempt to adjudicate quantum where a prior adjudication had settled entitlement and quantum. The subsequent adjudicator had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. 27th December 2001.
Watson Building Services Ltd, Re Application For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 60
Jurisdiction : Despite initial reservations about appointment, both parties gave adjudicator power to determine validity of the contract which led to his appointment. Outer House. CS. Lady Paton. 13th March 2001.
Westdawn Refurbishments Ltd v Roselodge Ltd [2006] Adj.L.R. 04/25
Written Contract for the purposes of s107 HGCRA. Whether assignee of a construction contract a party to a construction contract. Whether notice to assignor necessary to refer case to adjudication. Whether assignor a party to the dispute. Assignor in liquidation. HHJ McCahill QC (Sitting as a High Court Judge), High Court of Justice, QBD, Birmingham T&C Court. Case No: 6BM50020. 25th April 2006.
Westminster Building Company Ltd. v Beckingham [2004] EWHC 138 TCC
Voluntary Adjudication : Domestic : JCT 1998 incorporated by conduct ? no express acceptance ? adjudication provisions do not offend the UCTA 1977. HHJ Thnornton J. 20th February 2004.
Westwood Structural Services Ltd v Blyth Wood Park Management Company Ltd [2008] EWHC 3138 (TCC)
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. Mr Justice Coulson. 9th December 2008
Whiteways Contractors Ltd v. Impresa Castelli Construction Ltd [2000] EWHC TCC 67
Jurisdiction : An invitation by the parties to decide upon jurisdiction gives the adjudicator jurisdiction ? a decision which is enforceable even if wrongly decided. HHJ Bowsher. 9th August 2000.
William Verry (Glazing Systems) Ltd v Furlong Homes Ltd [2005] EWHC 138 TCC
Declaration - Jurisdiction - Due Process - Enforcement of adjudicator's decision. HHJ Peter Coulson. 13th January 2005.
William Verry Ltd v Camden London Borough Council [2006] EWHC 761 (TCC)
Adjudication decision re interim certificate at practical completion - included a deduction for LADs. Defendant issued a Final Certificate then declared that taking the adjudicator's award on LAD's into account a sum was due to the defendant. Claimant sought enforcement. Court held adjudication award not a hostage to the fortune of subsequent certificates. Full amount due. Defendant had right to pursue future claims later. Ramsey.J. TCC. 20th March 2006
William Verry Ltd. v North West London Communal Mikvah [2004] EWHC 1300 : 1 BLISS 24
Part referral & enforcement : Deals with 7 day requirement for referral of a dispute and impact of referring chrystalised part of a dispute and subsequently referring the rest of the dispute ? court delayed enforcement judgement on Part I for 6 weeks pending adjudication decision on Part II of dispute. HHJ Thornton. 11th June 2004.
Williams (t/a Sanclair Construction) v Noor (t/a India Kitchen) [2007] EWHC 3467 (TCC) Legal personality. Technical defence to enforcement of adjudication decision (related to EOTs etc) mounted on the basis that the adjudication was pursued by Mr not Mrs Williams (t/a Sanclair) : Mr Williams carried out the work converting a takeaway into a restaurant. Defence rejected. HHJ Hickinbottom. TCC. Cardiff District Registry. 29th November 2007.
Wimbledon Construction Company 2000 Ltd. v Vago [2005] EWHC 1086 TCC
Enforcement and insolvency : Court refused to withold enforcement of decision on the grounds of financial insecurity because it was the defendant's non payment that caused the insecurity. HHJ Peter Coulson. 20th May 2005.
Woods Hardwick Ltd v Chiltern Air Conditioning Ltd [2001] BLR 23
Bias : disclosure of legal advice to adjudicator : An appearance of bias resulted from the adjudicator not disclosing information to a party and taking legal advice without inviting comment. HHJ Thornton. TCC. 7th July 2000.
Workplace Technologies v E Squared Ltd & Mr J L Riches [2000] CILL 1607
Construction Contract : Court held it alone had power to rule on existence of construction contract : Held contract concluded post HGCRA which therefore applied. HHJ David Wilcox. 16th February 2000.
Yarm Road Ltd v Costain Ltd [2001] HT 01/288 (TCC)
HGCRA contract	:1995 contract novated in August 1998 ? bringing it within the scope of the HGCRA. HHJ Richard Havery. 30th July 2001.
Yorkshire Water Services Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Construction Northern Ltd [2002] EWHC 2140 (TCC)
Compulsory adjudication : Court required to decide whether or not a contract madated adjudication and thus whether a stay pending adjudication applicable. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd QC 18th October 2002.