Citation: [2016] EWHC 285 (TCC)
This was an application to enforce the decision of an adjudicator. Two issues arose: the alleged absence of a crystallised dispute at the time of the notice of adjudication and the alleged failure of the adjudicator to address important matters in issue.
The Claimant’s application for summary judgment was granted. Coulson J. held that the Defendant’s argument that no dispute had crystallised was “hopeless”, since there had been months of “to-ing and fro-ing” between the parties which was ample evidence of a dispute. Furthermore, the Defendant had failed to reserve the right to challenge the decision on this ground in any event. Requests from the adjudicator to supply documents and information were not in breach of the rules of natural justice. Finally, the argument that the adjudicator had failed to address important matters in issue was tantamount to saying that the decision was wrong and did not give rise to any breach of natural justice.
A copy of the judgment can be found here.
Counsel: James Thompson appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
