<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Adjudication - Articles</title>
<description>Adjudication - Articles from The Vinden Partnership</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/</link>
<item>
<title>Carillion Construction Ltd V Smith | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>Propositions formulated by Akenhead J as to whether the same or substantially the same dispute had been referred to or resolved in an earlier adjudication</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/carillion%20construction%20ltd%20v%20smith.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>NAP Anglia Ltd V Sun-Land Development Co Ltd | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>The adjudiators timetable could not be said to be unreasonable with the result that he could not be said to have acted in breach of the rules of natural juctice</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/nap%20anglia%20ltd%20v%20sun-land%20development%20co%20ltd.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Systech International Ltd V PC Harrington Contractors Ltd | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>The adjudicator was entitled to recover his fees on all three adjudications from the contractor in accordance with the adjudicators decision that it should pay them</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/systech%20international%20ltd%20v%20pc%20harrington%20contractors%20ltd.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Witney Town Council V Beam Construction (Cheltenham) Ltd | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>Propositions derived by Akenhead J as to what could constitute a dispute for adjudication (and arbitration) purposes</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/witney%20town%20council%20v%20beam%20construction%20%28cheltenham%29%20ltd.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Carillion Utility Services Ltd V SP Power Systems Ltd | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>The adjudicator did not act in breech of the rules of natural justice in applying his own reasoning to assess the quantum of the contractors claim but did act in breech in not giving notice of the commercial rates he applied which he derived from his own experience</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/carillion%20utility%20services%20ltd%20v%20sp%20power%20systems%20ltd.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd V Fenice Investments Inc | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>The adjudicators decision in the third adjudication rejecting the contractors claim that time was at large and/or that it was entitled to anything further arising in respect of delay was conclusive in accordance with clause 1.9.4</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/jerram%20falkus%20construction%20ltd%20v%20fenice%20investments%20inc.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd V Carillion Construction Ltd | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>The adjudicators failure to allow it to comment on his methodology and the figures he proposed to use in arriving at his valuation of the target cost did not amount to a breach of the rules of natural justice.</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/hyder%20consulting%20%28uk%29%20ltd%20v%20carillion%20construction%20ltd.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Lanes Group Plc V Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd (No 3) | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>The adjudicator was apparently biased by producing his preliminary views and findings of fact document</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/lanes%20group%20plc%20v%20galliford%20try%20infrastructure%20ltd%20%28no%203%29.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Fenice Investments Inc V Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>The employer should have summary judgment to recover the balance of the fees charged by the adjudicator and paid by it to the adjudicator where the adjudicator directed that the contractor should pay his fees but it only paid a small proportion of those fees</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/fenice%20investments%20inc%20v%20jerram%20falkus%20construction%20ltd.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Urang Commercial Ltd V Century Investments Ltd | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>The adjudicator could not be said to have acted in breach of the rules of natural justice by declining to deal with the employers counterclaim on its merits on the mistaken ground that the employer failed to serve a withholding notice in respect of that counterclaim</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/urang%20commercial%20ltd%20v%20century%20investments%20ltd.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Cain Electrical Ltd v Cox | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>Summary judgement should be ordered to enforce the adjudicators award to the sub-sub-contract dispite it having adduced evidence in the adjudication that terms of the sub-sub-contract were agreed orally</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/cain%20electrical%20ltd%20v%20cox.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Lanes Group Plc V Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd (No 2) | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>Whilst the contractor was in breach of the contractural adjudication agreement by deliberatley failing to serve its referral within two days of the adjudicators appointment, this breach could not constitute a repudiatory breach of the agreement</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/lanes%20group%20plc%20v%20galliford%20try%20infrastructure%20ltd%20%28no%202%29.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>CRJ Services Ltd V Lanstar Ltd | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>There was no reasonable prospect on the evidence before the court of the hirer being able to establish that the hirers manager did not have appropriate authority to enter into the long term hire contract in question</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/crj%20services%20ltd%20v%20lanstar%20ltd.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Profile Projects Ltd V Elmwood (Glasgow) Ltd | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>The non-compliance (and subsequent striking out) of a contractural adjudication provision with section 108 of the Construction Act did not mean that all the provisions of the agreement where replaced by the Scheme</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/profile%20projects%20ltd%20v%20elmwood%20%28glasgow%29%20ltd.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Lanes Group Plc V Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd (No 1) | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>The adjudicator had jurisdiction despite the contractors failure to send to the adjudicator and to the sub-contractor all the documetns supporting its notice of referral within two days of the adjudicators appointment in breach of the ICE Adjudication Procedure</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/lanes%20group%20plc%20v%20galliford%20try%20infrastructure%20ltd%20%28no%201%29.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>SGL Carbon Fibres Ltd V RBG Ltd | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>Principles set out by Lord Glennie as to the circumstances in which an adjudicator should be permitted to use his knowledge and experience to determine issues with facts which went beyond those brought out in the evidence</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/sgl%20carbon%20fibres%20ltd%20v%20rbg%20ltd.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Durham County Council V Kendall | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>The architects challenges in the court proceeedings to the adjudicators jurisdiction, if valid, would not prevent the adjudicators decision from being enforced since the architect had waived any rights to raise such challenges</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/durham%20county%20council%20v%20kendall.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>PC Harrington Contractors Ltd V Tyroddy Construction Ltd | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>The adjudicators breached the rules of natural justice by not determining the sub-contractors defence as to the true value of the final account and giving the parties the opportunity of being heard on the defence</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/pc%20harrington%20contractors%20ltd%20v%20tyroddy%20construction%20ltd.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Redwing Construction Ltd V Wishart (No 2) | The Vinden Partnership</title> 
<description>The recoverability as costs of the uplift under a conditional fee agreement or the premium for an after the event insurance in relation to adjudication enforcement proceedings</description>
<link>http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/redwing%20construction%20ltd%20v%20wishart%20%28no%202%29.htm</link> 
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>

