William Verry (Glazing Systems) Ltd v Furlong Homes Ltd

The response document served by the contractor in the adjudication began by the employer in which the contractor sought a longer extension of time than the one that formed the subject matter of the dispute referred by the employer did not constitute a new claim
 
WILLIAM VERRY (GLAZING SYSTEMS) LTD v FURLONG HOMES LTD

Technology and Construction Court
His Honour Judge Peter Coulson QC
13 January 2005
 
Judge Coulson held that the response document served by the contractor in the adjudication began by the employer (seeking decisions as to whether the extensions of time already granted by it were correct and whether the correct final account figure was the one it had calculated or whether the contractor's entitlement was some other figure) in which the contractor sought a longer extension of time than the one that formed the subject matter of the dispute referred by the employer did not, as the employer contended, constitute a new claim (and therefore invalid) claim. This was on the basis that it would be excessively legalistic to characterise the contractor's claim for a longer extension of time as being a new claim and instead it was a fuller explanation by way of refinement or enhancement to the original extension of time claim in that it merely reflected the fact that work had continued on site subsequent to the original claim having been submitted.
 
There was no attempt by the employer in its notice of adjudication to limit the dispute in respect of the correctness of the extension of time it had granted to previous claims made or information previously provided by the contractor and considered by it. Such a wide definition of the extension of time dispute was consistent with the reference to adjudication of the final account dispute which included liquidated damages and the adjudicator could not decide the employer's entitlement to such damages without first deciding the contractor's entitlement to an extension of time. The document produced by the employer made clear that the events relied on by the contractor in the original claim were repeated in the subsequent claim and the only differences between the two claims were that sometimes different periods of delay were attributed to the events in question and that further supporting information was submitted in support of the claim. Advice Note The courts have tended to be lenient to claimants who seek to advance claims in the adjudication which cannot easily be discerned from the contents of the notice of adjudication.
Download