Turning to the second question, the court could not agree that enforcement would undermine the correction principle. On the contrary it would be inconsistent with the right to adjudicate “at any time”. Secondly, Trant’s analysis implicitly precluded the possibility of any disputes on earlier payment applications remaining after a further payment application was made. Such possible disputes (on earlier applications) could be substantive ones, and they did not disappear and cease to exist because a subsequent application was made on an interim basis. Nor was there some sort of estoppel. What, in law, was the notified sum under PA26 did not become incapable of adjudication simply because the payment cycle moved on to Application 27 and beyond. Where for example there was a monthly payment cycle, the submission of a subsequent payment application would have to take place before the previous application had become due or before any adjudication on that previous application could be commenced. Upholding the approach urged by Trant would not only have created a wholly novel approach by the courts, but would be procedurally unjustified and would also undermine the policy of enforcement developed by the courts. The alternative application for a stay on the same facts also failed. Any contention relating to inability to repay having been abandoned, there was in fact or law no other basis on which it could be said that a stay was necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Going along with or participating in the subsequent payment cycle did not mean the right to adjudicate on the pre-existing dispute was lost or that Trant was somehow prejudiced.
Neither were any unusual features to support such a course.
4) Natural Justice: Waiver – Payment of adjudicator’s fee under reservation: Platform Interior Solutions Ltd v ISG Construction Ltd [15] ISG engaged Platform upon ISG’s subcontract terms to perform works in an hotel to the value of some £52,300. Platform's works were then extended by a variation instruction to cover substantial additional works and the subcontract price increased to £2,274,395.24 plus VAT. ISG purported to determine the subcontract for material or persistent breach pursuant to an express term. Platform said the termination was unlawful and claimed to rescind the subcontract. After the purported termination Platform submitted its payment application no 12 and also claimed the release of the retention in total a net payment of £621,268.43 plus VAT. There was no payment or pay less notice from ISG. The dispute over termination and what was due was referred by ISG to adjudication. The adjudicator decided that ISG had lawfully determined the subcontract, but that Platform was nevertheless due payment from ISG of £417,541.33 plus VAT. She arrived at this figure by applying the terms of clause 27(5) of the subcontract which had provided that: "(5) ISG shall be entitled to recover from the Sub-Contractor all losses, expenses, costs and damages suffered or which may be suffered by ISG by reason of such termination."
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter