Articles

The decision that the contractor should pay the sub-contractor a specified sum plus VAT as appropriate "without set-off" not later than 28 days after the sub-contractor delivered a VAT invoice did not prevent the contractor from serving an effective section 111 withholding notice after the decision

read more >

There was a "dispute" between the parties at the time the sub-contractor started the adjudication so that the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make his decision

read more >

Any failure by the contractor under clause 13.8.1 to provide an initial estimate of the time and cost consequences of an instruction that, in the contractor's opinion, required an adjustment to the contract sum or would delay the completion date did not constitute a breach of contract

read more >

Decision against the engineer company obtained by the contractor not enforceable against the engineer company's insurer under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 where the engineer company became insolvent after the decision was made

read more >

The work under the building services sub-contract for the dryer building which formed part of the project of the construction of a new waste water treatment works and sewage sludge recycling centre was a "construction operation"

read more >

An event taking place after the making of a decision which removed the contractual basis for the decision did not mean that the court should not subsequently enforce the decision

The defendant's potential right of set-off against the sum awarded was not be taken into account in the court enforcement proceedings where it did not raise that right before the adjudicator

read more >

Any award by the adjudicator to the successful party of the "legal costs" of an adjudication must be taxed by the court before they can be enforced against the paying party by the court

read more >

Where one or more of the contractual payment terms of a construction contract failed to comply with the requirements of the Construction Act 1996, the appropriate provision in the Scheme for Construction Contracts was to be implied into the contract leaving the compliant terms unaffected

read more >

Contractor entitled to have stayed to arbitration the employer's court proceedings to recover the sum awarded to the contractor notwithstanding that the employer was satisfied with the engineer's decision under the ICE Sixth Edition on which the dispute referred was based

read more >

There is no divergence of judicial approach as to what constitutes a "dispute" for adjudication purposes

read more >

The adjudicator was in breach of her statutory and contractual duty by not communicating her decision to the parties by the date required by the Construction Act 1996 but this lateness did not render her decision a nullity

read more >

There was no "dispute" which could properly be referred to adjudication by the contractor when at the time of the referral the time under JCT 80 for the architect to determine the contractor's applications had not expired

read more >

The adjudicator had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute as to which terms and conditions had been incorporated into the contract where there was no dispute that a contract had been concluded

read more >

Compliance with a contractual provision requiring a withholding notice to be served by an employer seeking to set-off liquidated damages against certified sums did not mean that such a notice was valid where the certified sum was the subject of an adjudication decision

read more >

No breach of the rules of natural justice by the adjudicator where the parties agreed at the outset to the adjudicator's programming expert acting independently and using his own expertise and did not request the expert to produce a preliminary or draft finding as a basis for them making further submissions

read more >

A "dispute" can arise simply because the defendant refuses to admit that a sum claimed is due and can encompass a final account claim together with a claim for an extension of time relating to interim payment applications

read more >

The decision that the sub-contractor should be paid a specified sum should be enforced by way of summary judgment notwithstanding the contractor's contention that it had validly determined the sub-contract and that all sums of money otherwise due under the sub-contract had thereby ceased to be due

read more >

The contractor's claim for an interim payment should be dismissed on the basis that it had not sought to prove that the monies claimed under the interim payment application were due under the contract

read more >

The adjudicator's errors of having based his decision on the wrong conditions of sub-contract went to the root of his jurisdiction and meant that his decision was a nullity

read more >

The decision awarding the sub-contractor a specified sum should be enforced on the basis that neither the sub-contract terms nor the ORSA Adjudication Rules prohibited enforcement proceedings until either the actual completion date of the last phase of the main contract or the termination of the sub-contract

read more >