Thus, only if the decision was one made without jurisdiction or the decision was
made in the presence of material breaches of natural justice would it not be
enforced. Neither of those features was contended for in present in this case. The
court reminded itself that the principles of enforcement were subject to two
narrow exceptions[11], namely (a) admitted error; or (b) a self-contained legal
point concerning timing, categorisation, or description of payment notices or
payless notices in respect of which the potential paying party had issued Part 8
proceedings. Neither of those two exceptions applied either.
Third, AVB complained of a series of what they said were errors by the adjudicator.
The court considered each of the complaints and looked at the way the
adjudicator had dealt with them. While in two instances, he might have done
better to refer to specific materials, the court found the complaints were
unjustified. Moreover, errors of fact, even if proven, would not invalidate the
decision.
There was a final matter. Although AVB brought the (second) adjudication, it was
AVB who was held to be the party who should make payment. Insofar as the result
of the Adjudicator's conclusions was to show that a sum was due or would
become due to JBH, that seemed to the court to be a legitimate conclusion.
However, "the court had some doubt as to whether it was within [the adjudicator's]
jurisdiction to go on to order payment." Nevertheless, the court found it should
grant summary judgment since the conclusion that monies were due to JBH was
still binding upon AVB, and the court should give effect to it.
Fees – Bias – whether adjudicator's demand for security amounted to threat to exercise a lien over the award
11
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online