Judgement 15 February 2023
The pre-action protocol for construction and engineering claims did not apply to
proceedings to enforce an adjudicator's award. Where a second dispute was not
the same as the first dispute and the first adjudicator's award was not claimed to
be binding on the second adjudicator, the second adjudicator's contrary findings
and award was binding. There was some doubt as to whether the second
adjudicator had the power to award payment of a sum found due to the
responding party, but the court gave effect to the award.
Fees – Bias – whether adjudicator's demand for security amounted to threat to exercise a lien over the award
Nicholas James Care Homes Ltd v Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd [2023] EWHC 360 (TCC)
Mr Recorder Andrew Singer KC judgment 21 February 2023
"Tenacious and persistent" efforts by the adjudicator's clerk to obtain payment of security for the adjudicator's fees had not "crossed the line ”. They did not amount to an attempt to exercise a lien nor constitute a threat to do so. There was no bias.
Natural Justice – challenge to enforcement of award and claim for final determination of validity of final account statement
Atalian Servant AMK Ltd v B W (Electrical Contractors) Ltd [2023] ScotCS CSOH 14
Lord Sandison (16 February 2023)
The adjudicator had not embarked on a frolic of his own. The parties had been
allowed and taken the opportunity to address him on the matters of complaint.
There was no breach of natural justice. A final account statement was a payment
notice and met the provisions of the contract and the Act. The bespoke clause
providing that the final account statement was to become final and binding on
BW unless adjudication or court proceedings were commenced within 20 days
was to be given its natural meaning. Since both adjudication and court
4
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online