on ‘beck and call’ and the number of man hours worked and invited comment. AMK responded in detail, repeatedly setting out their case as to why the variations had
to be valued under the sub-subcontract and that the number of man-hours worked
was irrelevant and unreliable.
The Lord President noted the adjudicator took on “ a nigh impossible task ” having to consider an enormous volume of written materials. He said it was redolent of what
was described by Turner J in Re Fundao Dam Disaster 10 as amounting to "a fractal
pattern of progressively complex and ever-finer recursive detail of sharply declining
significance," adding that it would have required a super-human effort to carry out
a precise valuation exercise before the adjudication deadline. The decision was bound to involve “broad justice at high speed” . The court concluded that the Award was “an exemplary piece of work” , the adjudicator having cut down the issue to one of assessing roughly what he considered to be payable and doing so in accordance
with the sub-subcontract. He selected a contractual rate and applied it to the hours
worked. This was no frolic of his own and the natural justice challenge failed.
The court found no need to address the discrete question of whether the court could
have considered, as a parallel question on enforcement, whether the FAS was
binding on the adjudicator and reserved it to a future occasion.
Payment application – Validity – ‘days’ not ‘clear days’ Elements Europe Ltd v FK Buildings Ltd [2023] EWHC 726 (TCC) Mr Justice Constable
judgment 30 March 2023
The claimant (Elements) sought summary judgment pursuant to an adjudicato r’ s decision awarding them over £3.9m plus interest and fees. That dispute was only
10 [2020] EWHC 2471 (at para 11).
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting