Adjudication Case Summaries

The adjudicator's refusal to consider the sub-contractor's omissions defence meant that he was guilty of a significant jurisdictional error and did not act in accordance with the requirements of natural justice

read more >

The contractor was entitled to a declaration in the Part 8 proceedings it brought as to whether it was or was not in breach of contract as a result of the adjudicator?s decision

read more >

It was not the case, as the employer, that it was under no obligation to make any further payment to the contractor by the application of clause 7.2. the JCT Minor Works Form 98, including the sums found due to it in the adjudication

read more >

The contractor's statements to the adjudicator in the second adjudication that the decision in the first adjudication was valid and precluded him from proceeding meant that it could not seek to challenge the validity of the decision

read more >

The adjudicator's decision was not unenforceable on the ground that the contract required it to be a reasoned one but the adjudicator himself stated in his decision that it was not reasoned

read more >

The fact that the adjudicator had acted as an adjudicator and a mediator in relation to other disputes to which the referring party had been a party did not mean that the adjudicator was apparently biased in relation to the adjudication which formed the subject matter of the instant case

read more >

The adjudicator's decision for the contractor to pay the sub-contractor a specified sum should not be enforced by reason of there being a triable issue as to whether there were terms of the contract between those parties which were orally agreed

read more >

Assuming that there had been a debt due and owing from the third parties to the developer (as judgment debtor), the court’s discretion should not be exercised by making final the interim third party debt orders obtained by the contractor (as judgment creditor)

read more >

The dispute referred to the adjudicator in the second adjudication was the same or substantially the same as the dispute referred to the adjudicator in the first adjudication

read more >

The adjudicator in the third adjudication did not have the jurisdiction to embark upon and to decide the issues in the that adjudication

read more >

The court had the jurisdiction to determine the parties' dispute as to whether there was a contract and terms of the contract contended for by the contractor despite no adjudication having been begun and directions should be made to enable that determination to be made

read more >

Whilst an adjudicator could in principle issue an interim decision, if he did not issue a final decision with the required time, it was invalid but the decision in the instant case was not an interim one

read more >

The adjudicator was wrong, as a matter of construction of DOM/2, to determine that he had no jurisdiction to extend the responding party's time for service of its response (beyond seven days) and was in material breach of the rules of natural justice in having made that determination

read more >

The claims made in the payment applications in context were not so nebulous and ill-defined as to be incapable of giving rising to a dispute

read more >

There was no implied contractual term that neither party should seek to influence unilaterally the nominator's appointment of an adjudicator by making unilateral representations to the nominator concerning whom it should nominate

read more >

Assuming that the sub-contract incorporated the arbitration agreement in DOM/1, the arbitration proceedings brought by the sub-contractor should not be stayed by the court to allow the contractor to adjudicate its claim for liquidated damages

read more >

The employer was not entitled to set off its alleged entitlement to liquidated damages against the specified sum awarded by the adjudicator to the contractor even if it was so entitled

read more >

There was an arguable case as to the question of jurisdiction on the ground that the contract did not comply with section 107 of the Construction Act by reason of there being two material terms of the contract agreed orally which were not reduced to writing

read more >

It could not be said that the contractor's defence was bound to fail by reason of its withholding notices not being effective since there had been no attempt to attribute the individual sums sought to be withheld to individual grounds for withholding

read more >

The employer company was not a residential occupier with the result that the contract was not exempt from the application of the Construction Act 1996 by the operation of section 106(1)(a)

read more >