Citation: [2023] EWHC 3122 (TCC)
The Court granted summary judgment enforcing an adjudicator’s decision for payment of £776,920.32 (plus interest).
The decision raised a number of points of interest.
The underlying agreement was for the supply of goods for use in a construction project. There was a dispute as to whether a contract had been formed and, if so, whether it provided for adjudication. The Court found that there was a binding contract with an adjudication provision. In reaching that decision, the Court was willing, at the summary judgment stage, to consider extensive documentary evidence on contract formation.
The Court rejected an argument that the Claimant had sought to approbate and reprobate the adjudicator’s decision, in circumstances where the Claimant contended that the contract was formed at a different date and by different means than those decided by the adjudicator.
The Court rejected an argument that the notice of adjudication did not meet the requirements of the Scheme. Among other things, the notice of adjudication referred to a letter of claim and the Court found that the letter of claim was thereby incorporated by reference.
The Court rejected an argument that there had been an excess of jurisdiction or a breach of natural justice, in circumstances where the adjudicator awarded the Claimant more than it had originally sought based on an legal authority that the adjudicator had identified himself. It was sufficient that the adjudicator had invited each party to comment on that authority.
John McMillan was instructed by Hay & Kilner LLP and acted for the successful Claimant.
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/tcc/2023/3122?query=%5B2023%5D+EWHC+3122
