payment as being governed by a new contract. The term 'beck and call' may have
been equally used to describe the changed nature of the works. The parties made
it clear to him that neither was suggesting there was a new contract, and any
initial attraction there might have been to that view was not persisted in as
informing his decision. The view as to a fair valuation might yet prove to be correct.
The court was not persuaded that the approach to valuation was a frolic of his
own but rather a genuine attempt to answer the question put to him. The
objection on that ground failed.
As to the issue of the validity of the final account statement, the adjudicator was
clearly entitled under paragraphs 13 and 20 of the Scheme (for Scotland) to raise it
with the parties. Once he had done so, there was extensive correspondence in
which every opportunity was offered and taken for each party's position to be
amply elucidated. In accepting BW's position, he had obviously rejected AMK's
position.
On each of the residual complaints, similar observations were made. On a fair
reading of the correspondence, each party was given ample opportunity to
advance its case. Indeed, if anything, the parties had been overindulged. None of
the relevant criticisms were made out.
Decree granted in favour of BW to enforce the decision.
In its action AMK sought declarations that (a) its Final Account Statement was
validly issued in terms of clause 33.3 of the subcontract; (b) it was final and
binding on BW unless and until the contrary may be determined in the substantive
action; and (c) that it was final and binding on Mr Bingham in his adjudication. It
18
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online