It extended to a decision of an adjudicator which, by the operation of the Act and the Scheme, was not final and binding on the parties. Its function was to protect the position of the successful party on an interim basis pending the final resolution of the parties' dispute through the normal court processes (or by arbitration). Whilst summary judgment was clearly a final and conclusive remedy, the reality of this summary judgment application was that the court was being invited to grant an interim, rather than a final and conclusive, remedy. The underlying dispute between the parties was not before the court. This was consistent with the position under construction contracts containing arbitration clauses. The Policy of the Act required the enforcement by the courts of the interim adjudicator's award before the final determination by an arbitrator. In the ordinary case, the paying party could not avoid payment of a sum awarded by an adjudicator by staying enforcement proceedings for arbitration. A similar approach was mandated, in the face of a foreign exclusive jurisdiction clause, by art. 7 of the 2005 Hague Convention. The court held that the exception in art. 7 (but not art. 6 (c)) of the 2005 Hague Convention applied and gave summary judgment for the claimant.
Comment This is a careful and fully reasoned judgment which repays reading. As pointed out, the application would have failed had there been contested evidence before the court as to the manner in which implied terms were to be treated in Italian law.
There is no indication at this time whether the decision might be the subject of an appeal.
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker