by either party, nor had they had the opportunity to address it, and that was a
breach of the rules of natural justice.
Second, Mr Bingham had decided that the final account statement was
contractually invalid without this issue having been raised by either party, again in
breach of the rules of natural justice.
Separately, Mr Bingham had failed to address and thus failed to exhaust his
jurisdiction in relation to various lines of defence advanced by AMK, including
several items of cross claim. It was suggested that it was not sufficient for Mr
Bingham simply to say that he had taken all the submissions into account; he
ought to have expressly dealt with the several arguments.
Decision
At paragraph [17], the judgment his Lordship said
"The Court's approach requires to be informed, indeed infused, by the need to
promote the aims of the statutory scheme for adjudication, which provides parties
to construction contracts with a simple and rapid means of determining their
mutual financial rights and obligations, at least on an interim basis. Subject to the
minimum legal standards which any power of decision-making must observe, the
Court should avoid an approach to the assessment of criticisms of the work of an
adjudicator which would tend to complicate and delay such work."
The question put to the adjudicator could scarcely have been wider: what sum (if
any) was due from AMK to BW? The subcontract permitted the valuation of
additional works on a fair and reasonable basis, and that could, to a greater or
lesser degree, be regarded as a quantum meruit. What might be described as
inexactitude of the language used did not mean the adjudicator had regarded
17
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online