considered due. If BW did not agree with the sum stated due in final account
statement, it had 20 days in which to commence adjudication or court
proceedings to challenge the stated sum.
By its final account, BW claimed some £1.8m net. AMK's final account statement
showed a net sum due to BW of a mere £2,700.
Within the 20 days, BW commended an adjudication before Mr Entwistle to
establish the sum due. Mr Entwistle resigned because of the massive amount of
material submitted to him and the short time he was allowed to decide the
dispute. BW, again within the 20 days, commenced an action to finally establish
the sum due on the final account. Three months later, it commenced a second
adjudication before Mr Tony Bingham to determine the sum due on the final
account. The court noted that the dispute referred was framed in the widest
possible terms.
Mr Bingham awarded BW £1.4m plus interest of £18,000. He found that the AMK final
account statement was invalid and of no effect and he revalued the whole of the
works on a quantum meruit basis finding that the contract had been converted to
what he described as a "beck and call" contract.
BW sought enforcement of Mr Bingham's decision, and AMK opposed on the same
on the following grounds.
First, Mr Bingham had not answered the question referred to him, namely "what
was the sum due?", but had embarked on a frolic of his own in assessing a fair
price based on what he regarded as a new contract. This was not a matter raised
16
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online