Kew had raised two new arguments on enforcement: a) The existence of an oral variation and or new contract; and b) Whether or not the adjudication was statutory or contractual. The Court now referred to the guidance in Bresco . Kew had raised three specific jurisdictional challenges in the adjudication. There was no general reservation. The oral variation point was however raised in the adjudication, albeit late, and the Court was obliged to deal with it. There was no evidence before the Court of a separate oral variation or agreement, to deprive the adjudicator of jurisdiction. The final challenge was unusual and fell within the description of ‘scraping the bottom of the barrel.’ The dispute was referred under the statutory scheme, without any challenge by Kew on that ground during the adjudication. In any event, whether the adjudication was submitted under the Scheme through a contractual provision, or under the Scheme through the statutory provision, made absolutely no difference. In the result, Kew had no defence to the application.
7
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online