8 Jun 2022FTH LTD v VARIS DEVELOPMENTS LTD Summary judgment should not be ordered to enforce the adjudicator’s decision awarding the contractor, a company the subject of a voluntary arrangement, a specified sum where the employer showed that there was a real risk that summary enforcement would deprive it of security for its cross-claim
8 Jun 2022ESSENTIAL LIVING (GREENWHICH) LTD v ELEMENTS (EUROPE) LTD An adjudicator lacks jurisdiction to determine matters which are (substantially) the same in a subsequent adjudication but the parties’ rights and liabilities identified by the decision do not affect their underlying contractual rights and liabilities in relation to the dispute or displace the contractual procedures for determining them
24 May 2022LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL v VITAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT (VIAM) LTD The adjudicator was in breach of the rules of natural justice by determining the dispute on the basis that the employer by its reference in its compensation event notice to there being no applicable rate in the schedule of rates made an implicit concession that the rate in the schedule was a mistake
19 May 2022NICHOLAS JAMES CARE HOMES LTD v LIBERTY HOMES (KENT) LTD The interim freezing injunction against the contractor at a without notice hearing should be continued until after the adjudication enforcement hearing at which the developer would be seeking to enforce the adjudicator’s award in its favour in a “true value” adjudication by way of summary judgment
19 Apr 2022BEXHEAT LTD v ESSEX SERVICES GROUP LTD The sub-contractor was not entitled to rely on clause 30.2 of the sub-sub-contract to set off its contra charges claim against the sub-sub-contractor against the sum awarded to it in the second adjudication
7 Apr 2022VAN OORD UK LTD v DRAGADOS UK LTD The adjudicator in awarding the sub-contractor an extension of time went off on a “frolic of his own” by not giving the parties a fair opportunity to comment on his proposed adoption of the March 2019 programme as the baseline and the consequences he considered that had for the critical date of 31 July 2019
14 Feb 2022STEVE WARD SERVICES (UK) LTD v DAVIES & DAVIES ASSOCIATES LTD The adjudicator was entitled to payment of his fees by the referring party for the work he had done before resigning under clause 1 of his terms of appointment, which provided that he was entitled to payment of his fees if the decision was not delivered “save for any act of bad faith” by him
27 Jan 2022JOHN GRAHAM CONSTRUCTION LTD v TECNICAS REUNIDAS UK LTD General propositions derived from case law as to the effect of a prior adjudicator's decision in a subsequent adjudication if the dispute referred was (substantially) the same as one (referred and) decided in an earlier adjudication
14 Jan 2022BILTON & JOHNSON (BUILDING) CO LTD v THREE RIVERS PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LTD The adjudicator did not act in breach of natural justice by reaching his decision identifying the relevant contractual terms on a basis which had not been advanced by either party and on which it had had no opportunity to make representations
13 Dec 2021BRAVEJOIN COMPANY LTD v PROSPERITY MOSELEY STREET LTD There was a dispute when the contractor submitted invoices to the employer’s agent who issued payment certificates and pay less notices signed “for and on behalf of [the employer]” and the adjudicator’s award to it in respect of the invoices should therefore be enforced summarily
7 Dec 2021D McLAUGHLIN & SONS LTD v EAST AYRSHIRE COUNCIL The employer’s position that the final certificate was conclusive evidence for the purpose of its counterclaim in the contractor’s successful enforcement proceedings seeking to overturn the adjudicator’s decision should be rejected and the counterclaim should therefore be dismissed
5 Nov 2021GREATER GLASGOW HEALTH BOARD v MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTION EUROPE LTD It would not be impossible for all the issues in the employer’s defects claim against the contractor and its consultants to be resolved by the adjudication process where they were alleged to be jointly and severally liable and where there could be multiple adjudications with the risk of mutually inconsistent decisions
