This might have practical consequences for adjudicators, who found themselves asked by responding parties to become embroiled in matters outside the construction contract. Orthodoxy suggested that they ought to resist becoming involved in that way. They were appointed to resolve the dispute under the construction contract. Absent specific agreement from the parties for the adjudicator to consider and resolve matters outside the construction contract, they would have no jurisdiction to do so. Such matters would be for the court to consider on the summary judgment application.
In elaborating on the above principles, the judge made these further points.
1. The decision of the adjudicator would have had to resolve (or take into account) all the different elements of the overall financial dispute between the parties to the construction contract. Where, as in this case, the dispute referred was the valuation of the referring party's final account, summary judgment would potentially be available (dependent upon the other considerations below) . If the dispute referred was a more narrowly defined one, such as the valuation of a single component part of an interim payment, or one single head of claim, then summary judgment would not be available. It was suggested by the court that the type of situation where the overall financial dispute was referred, was ‘unusual’ or ‘atypical’ and contrasted it with the more common technical or ‘smash and grab’ adjudication which would not be suitable for enforcement by an insolvent referring party. 2. Mutual dealings on other contracts, or other defences, if they have not been taken into account by the adjudicator, would have to be taken into account by the court on the summary judgment application. That conclusion was to be drawn from what Lord Briggs said at [65], where he stated: "there may be no dispute about the cross- claim, and the claimmay be found to exist in a larger amount, so that there is no reason not to give summary judgment for the company for the balance in its favour."
3. Where there was no "real risk" that summary enforcement of the adjudicator's decision would deprive the paying party of security for its cross-claim.
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker