Articles

Adjudicator did ask himself the right question when deciding that the contractual payment provisions had not been complied with notwithstanding that the judge at first instance held them not to apply

read more >

The adjudicator was not required as a matter of natural justice to have invited submissions from the parties before she departed from their agreed position that the sub-contract?s payment provisions complied with the requirements of the Construction Act

read more >

The adjudicator's alleged mistaken understanding that the employer had informed him that it accepted that the variations claims could not be challenged did not mean that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to include in his award the total amounts claimed respect of variations

read more >

The contractor pleaded its claim for payment of the sum certified in the interim payment certificate issued by the architect under JCT 80 sufficiently to entitle it under Scottish court practice and procedure to a proof of its averments

read more >

The adjudicator had no jurisdiction for the referred dispute of the contractor's entitlement under its interim payment application where it was decided in a prior adjudication that it should be paid the full amount of that application in the absence of a notice under clause 30.3.3 or .4 of JCT 98

read more >

The decision in the contractor's favour should be enforced by way of summary judgement on the basis of the rejection of the employer's contention that there was no dispute factually

read more >

There should be summary judgement against the sub-contractor in respect of the dishonoured cheque for the certified value of the sub-sub-contractor?s works notwithstanding its defence of a total or partial failure of consideration or of the certified sum not having become due

read more >

The adjudicator?s decision for the contractor to make an interim payment to the sub-contractor should be enforced by way of summary judgement despite the contractor?s contention that the sub-contractor?s notice of intention to refer did not contain any request for an interim payment

read more >

Mixed Use - Piccadilly, Manchester

read more >

The sub-contractor could not set-off against the sum awarded by the adjudicator to the contractor various sums allegedly due from the contractor to the sub-contractor which the sub-contractor claimed in a separate adjudication (already) begun by it against the contractor

read more >

The statutory demands based on the adjudicator?s decision should not be enforced on the assumption that that decision was made without jurisdiction

read more >

The adjudicator was entitled to recover his fees relating to his determination of the preliminary issue of whether he had jurisdiction notwithstanding the defendant?s contention that the adjudicator had been wrong in making this determination on the basis that he had misunderstood and misapplied the relevant caselaw

read more >

The adjudicator?s decision awarding the sub-contractor a sum in respect of the value of its works should not be enforced by way of summary judgement on the basis of the contractor?s unanswered allegations that the money awarded was brought about by an unlawful and fraudulent conspiracy

read more >

It was not possible to conclude that the contractor?s ?pay when paid? clause in its standard terms and conditions of contract which was incorporated into the sub-contract was unreasonable in itself

read more >

The adjudicator dealt fairly and squarely with the issues put before him and whether or not his conclusions were correct in law was irrelevant with the result that his decision could not be said to have been made without jurisdiction

read more >

The adjudicator's decision in favour of the sub-contractor should not be enforced where the adjudication was not subject to the Construction Act where the contractor exercised a right of set off against the decision in accordance with the sub-contract

read more >

The contractor's claim against the adjudicator (an architect) for the repayment of part of his fees (which the contractor paid in full subject to protest) on the ground that the number of hours he took was excessive failed

read more >

The contractor?s ?interim valuation? document did not constitute an interim payment application under the contract and was instead a request for agreement of the valuation under the contract as a preliminary to the subsequent making of a payment application

read more >

The sub-contract was an agreement in writing within the meaning of section 107(1) of the Construction Act 1996 on the basis that it was evidenced in writing within the meaning of section 107(2)(c

read more >

The substitute sub-contractor could under the novation agreement adjudicate disputes against the contractor under the Construction Act 1996 on the basis that the agreement was a construction contract under section 104 (1)(a) and (6)(a)

read more >