Decision: Article 6 (c) The burden lay with the claimant to persuade the court that one or both of the two limbs of the particular exception was engaged. The threshold was a high one. In the judgment of the court, giving effect to the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract would not lead to any "manifest injustice" ; nor would it be "manifestly contrary to the public policy" of the United Kingdom. Parliament could have provided for a derogation for the enforcement of adjudicators’ decisions in the English and Welsh (or Scottish) courts, in accordance with art. 21 of the 2005 Hague Convention, but had not done so. The claimant had not satisfied the court that it would be contrary to public policy, or unjust, (let alone manifestly so) to require the claimant to enforce its adjudication award in the courts of Paris, France. There was no good reason why the parties should not be held to the bargain that they freely made when they incorporated clause 19 into their construction contract. There was a total absence of any evidence as to why enforcement might not proceed effectively in the courts of Paris, France. In a future case, an issue might arise where, on undisputed evidence, there was a tension between the statutory policy of affording the parties a speedy mechanism for settling disputes in construction contracts on a provisional, and interim, basis, and the contractual right, enforceable by statute, afforded to contracting parties, to confer exclusive jurisdiction on a foreign court.
D ecision: Article 7 The court
preferred claimants’ submission. Lord Ackner recognised in his contribution to the debate on the Act in the House of Lords, the underlying purpose of the adjudication remedy was to address the need to produce a "quick, enforceable, interim decision" . the Dyson J (as he then was) explained in Macob[8], that it was plainly Parliament's intention in enacting the Act " to introduce a speedy mechanism for settling disputes in construction contracts on a provisional interim basis and requiring the decisions of adjudicators to be enforced pending the final determination of disputes by arbitration, litigation or agreement" . In Babcock Marine[9]. O'Farrell J described adjudication as "a sui generis system of dispute resolution which is in many respects unique. The primary aim of adjudication is the swift temporary resolution of the question of the dispute pending the final determination of the issues between them." The concept of an interim measure of protection was not restricted to measures intended merely to preserve the position of the parties pending a final judgment. The categories of "interim protective measures " were not closed but were capable of expansion as national courts devised new interim remedies (or measures) to protect the interests of litigants pending the final and substantive resolution of their dispute. The concept extended to any decision that was not a final and conclusive decision on the substantive merits of the case.
That issue did not arise in this case.
There was no evidence that the adjudicator's decision could not be enforced in a timely and effective manner in the courts of Paris.
[8] Macob Civil Engineering Ltd vMorrison Construction Ltd (1999) 64 Con LR 1 [9] BabcockMarine (Clyde) Limited v HS Barrier Coatings Ltd [2019] EWHC 1659 (TCC), [2019] BLR 495
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker