||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 325 (Mar)
|| EWHC 400 (TCC)
||Technology and Construction Court
Judge Richard Seymour QC
||Ian Pennicott (instructed by Shadbolt & Co) for the claimant.
||Martin Bowdery QC (instructed by Greenwoods) for the defendant.
||21 March 2002
Adjudication - Adjudicator - Jurisdiction - 'Dispute' - Scope of 'dispute' - Claimant claiming prolongation costs - Basis of claim changing in referral notice - Adjudicator determining 'dispute' on new basis - Whether 'dispute' encompassing facts relied on and arguments of parties - Whether adjudicator acting without jurisdiction - s 108.
For the purposes of s108 of the and cl38A of the standard form DOM-1 sub-contract provisions for referral of a 'dispute' to an adjudicator, there was more to a 'dispute' than a 'claim' that had not been accepted. For there to be a 'dispute', there had to have been an opportunity for the protagonists each to consider the position adopted by the other and to formulate arguments of a reasoned kind. Accordingly, an adjudicator had acted without jurisdiction in determining a 'dispute' on the basis of a substantially different claim for prolongation that arose out of a report that was first made known to the other party when it accompanied the notice of referral to adjudication.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary