arguments at all or even refer to them in his decision. Before the Court it was VH’s case that the claims were fraudulent though that term was never used in the adjudication. If there was indeed a failure to deal with the defence that the claims were fraudulent or at least manufactured, it was accepted it must have been inadvertent, not deliberate. In its referral and its preamble to dealing with the subcontractors’ claims, RGB said it did not deal with the claims individually due to their similarity but made brief comments on their adequacy. VH in its reply made submissions in answer to RGB’s defence of the claims – essentially saying that the claims had been produced with the assistance and collusion of RGB, were not genuine and independent. The fact that the letters containing the claims were suspiciously similar was in fact referred to in the adjudicator’s decision as was VH’s complaint that there was an absence of supporting documents. In light of this it was not sustainable for VH to claim that the adjudicator had not read its submissions. Despite not dealing with each claim separately or referring expressly to the ‘suspicion’ raised by the similarity in the letters, the Court drew the inference that the adjudicator must have considered these arguments and either dismissed them or regarded them as immaterial. In other parts of his decision it was apparent the adjudicator had in mind the inadequacy of supporting evidence for at least one of the claims. The adjudicator was entitled to form his own view of the evidence about the claims. He was not obliged to set out every step of his reasoning. There was no inference that he had overlooked a key defence. In summary it was not at all clear that VH’s case was that the claims were fraudulent. Rather it seemed the subcontractors had been encouraged or assisted to make the claims. That and a lack of support went to the merits of the claims and the adjudicator clearly considered the merits of each claim. A failure to consider every sub-issue if there was such a failure did not render the decision one reached in breach of the rules of natural justice. Even if the adjudicator did inadvertently overlook some other element of the VH defences or of the evidence, that did not render the decision so unfair that it should not be enforced or mean he had failed to deal with the dispute referred to him. Decision enforced.
6
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter