Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 325 (Mar)
Neutral Citation: [2002] EWHC 400 (TCC)
Court: Technology and Construction Court
Judge:

Judge Richard Seymour QC

Representation Ian Pennicott (instructed by Shadbolt & Co) for the claimant.
  Martin Bowdery QC (instructed by Greenwoods) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 21 March 2002

Catchwords

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.

The Case

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.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.