Adjudication Case Summaries

The enabling and civil engineering works to be carried out under the sub-contracts at the power stations were construction operations within section 105(1) of the Construction Act and were not excluded as being the assembly or installation of plant or machinery under s105(2)(c)(i)

read more >

The adjudicator’s decision should not be enforced on the grounds that the adjudicator acted without jurisdiction and in breach of the rules of natural justice by calculating the construction manager’s loss of profits based on an approach which neither party had raised before him

read more >

As a matter of construction of the sub-contract, the parties agreed that the RICS would be the adjudicator nominating body

read more >

It was not the case that the adjudicator acted in breach of the rules of natural justice by not properly deciding the dispute before him

read more >

The decisions of the adjudicators in the two adjudications should both be enforced

read more >

The default judgment obtained by the local authority in default of the contractor having filed its defence with the court by the specified date should be set aside without any conditions being imposed by the court

read more >

The homeowners were not the residential occupiers of the building in their property on which the work was carried out within the meaning of section 106 of the Construction Act

read more >

Whether or not the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make his decision on the merits, the responding party was liable to pay the adjudicator his reasonable fees and expenses and was jointly and severally liable with the referring party to the adjudicator for those fees and expenses

read more >

The summary judgment entered against the employer for the enforcement of the adjudicator's decision in the contractor's favour should not be stayed pursuant to RSC Order 47, rule 1

read more >

The circumstances in which an adjudicator can revise his decision (the "slip rule") derived from caselaw

read more >

The adjudicator's decision in the sub-contractor's favour should not be enforced on the ground that the adjudicator failed to consider the contractor's defence of set off and counterclaim

read more >

The employer's contention that the contractor's claim for loss and expense was new and based on new expert evidence with the results that there was no crystallised dispute in respect of the claim and that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to determine the claim should be rejected

read more >

The fact that the contractor's claim came before the court as a claim due in consequence of a breach of a settlement agreement made no difference to the general approach that the court would ordinarily enforce the adjudicators' decisions on a summary basis

read more >

Clause 12.4 of the sub-contractor's terms and conditions was in accordance with the Construction Act and the adjudicator had therefore been validly appointed by reference to those terms and conditions

read more >

Whilst the court had jurisdiction to make the declarations sought by the employer in relation to the future conduct of the adjudication and, in particular, to the risk of a breach of natural justice if it was conducted in accordance with the present timetable, they should not be made

read more >

Even if the contractor had a good ground for challenging the adjudicator's jurisdiction, it nevertheless submitted to the adjudicator's jurisdiction

read more >

There was one ?main? sub-contract which was in effect varied by the parties with the introduction of additional works with the results that the adjudicator was entitled to rule on his jurisdiction and had the jurisdiction to decide all the disputes referred

read more >

There was no breach of the rules of natural justice by the adjudicator as a result of him not carrying out a site inspection

read more >

The contractor's contention that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction by reason of the sub-contract containing an oral fitness for purpose term should be rejected

read more >

The adjudicator could not be said to have acted in excess of jurisdiction by having stated in his award that he was reluctant to construe the contract in the way suggested ?for obvious reasons of reasonableness"

read more >