– – of Key Dates (all as defined in NEC3). The Pursuer rejected the PM’s a awarded at the time of the compensation event on what is called the “prospective approach” low. The Defender argued that it was the “retrospective approach” (looking back at what had
“prospective” approach and rejected the Defender’s “retrospective” approach, The Defender opposed the application to enforce the adjudicator’s decision on the a ‘material defence’ of and subsequent submissions in the adjudication, the adjudicator’s findings and the respective senior counsels’ submissions to the court, Lord Richardson delivered his – made on a “prospective” or “retrospective” basis was in issue in the ejoinder. In accepting the Pursuer’s case on the assessment, as could be seen adjudicator had accepted the “prospective” approach. Thus “Adjudication is a It seemed to have been ‘cut and pasted’ from the Referral without the necessary editing to make it
been clear to the “reasonable reader” from the earlier findings, what sum the The court repelled the Defender’s pleas in law and g – nt’s etitioner’s right to respondent’s claim for unliquidated damages had not been proved the adjudicator’s v
sum as a consequence of the petitioner’s failure to complete the works by the only discount the adjudicator’s view His Lordship went on to hold that the adjudicator’s view was “clearly wrong”.
respondent’s claim for damages due to a failure to complete by the completion was considered, it became clear that the adjudicator’s decision was “In my view, will be barred.” The ‘fine line’ referred to in the introduction to this note, requires the adjudicator address every defence advanced by the responding party so as to ‘exhaust isdiction’
enforcement) published in Ciarb’s journal Arbitration: The International Journal of Ciarb’s role as an Adjudicator Nominating Body Develop your knowledge and skills in construction adjudication through Ciarb’s
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker