Guide underline. One unusual feature was that the remedy sought in the adjudication included a request that the adjudicator “advises” the parties on two issues namely whether the subcontractor had been negligent in the way it had installed certain fittings and also whether the payment ‘prerequisites’ had been complied with. The ad judicator did as requested and gave ‘advice’ on th ose issues. The court took a pragmatic view and decided that the ‘ a dvice’ was binding until there was a final determination, p erhaps encouraged by the fact that the ‘advice’ did not impact the core findings as to valuation and payment or the validity of the
decision. The referring party had drafted its own notice and referral and some of
the language used was informal. The court might have found the matter more troublesome had the core issues been the subject of the ‘advice’ .
Jurisdiction – Failure to exhaust by not expressly considering line of defence AGB Scotland v Darren McDermott [2023] CSOH 31, 17 May 2023, Lord Sandison
The parties entered into a SBCC Standard Building Contract with Quantities for the carrying out of alterations and an extension at Mr McDermott’s home. AGB applied to the quantity surveyor for an interim payment of £367.8k (IPA). Upon being notified
that the quantity surveyor was no longer instructed by Mr McDermott, AGB then
resubmitted the IPA to the contract administrator (CRGP) who issued a pay less
notice stating nothing was due.
The IPA referred and, AGB said, enclosed a copy of an earlier letter and its appendix
which set out the basis on which the interim payment was calculated. AGB
commenced adjudication proceedings in which the adjudicator had to decide
several issues including whether the appendix was sent with the IPA. He found for
AGB and awarded them the sum claimed. In proceedings to enforce the decision,
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting