Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
their defence, namely, that they had previously made overpayments to RBG, so that,
even if the invoice amounts were due, no further payment was required to be made
by them. While this was permitted by the applicable contractual payment mechanism
(in this case the NEC3 Option C), the adjudicator came to a decision with regard only
to the sums sought in RBG's invoices. The adjudicator declined to consider the over-
payments at the earlier stage of the works, as these, he thought, would have to be dealt
with in a separate adjudication. Lord Menzies considered that, even if the question of
overpayments did not expressly fall within the scope of the dispute, as defined in the
Notice of Adjudication, it would nonetheless fall within the scope of the adjudication.
An adjudicator, it was held, must consider any relevant defence on which the respon-
dent relies. See also
Pilon Ltd
v
.BreyerGroupLtd
(2010) and
KNN Coburn LLP
v
.GD
City Holdings Ltd
(2013).
No dispute
Sindall Ltd
v.
Solland Interiors Lts and Others
(2002) considered the issue of whether
a dispute had arisen. Solland determined Sindall's employment in December 2000 on
the grounds of failure to proceed regularly and diligently with renovation works at a
property in Mayfair, a notice of default having been served. he adjudicator appointed
to determine the extension of time issue decided that Sindall was entitled to an exten-
sion of time to October 2000 in respect of events to August 2000. In January 2001 Sin-
dall sought a further award of extension of time. he contract administrator requested
furtherinformationwhichSindallprovidedwithaletterstatingthataformalresponse
wasrequiredwithinsevendays.AdjudicationproceedingswerecommencedwithSin-
dall seeking:
•
a declaration that the determination was wrongful;
•
adeclarationthatitwasentitledtoanextensionoftimetothedateofdetermination.
The adjudicator found in favour of Sindall on both points and enforcement proceed-
ings were raised. Solland argued that the adjudicator had acted without jurisdiction
because, as at the date of service of theadjudication notice, there was in fact no dispute
between the parties regarding the extension of time question.
His Honour Judge Lloyd decided that no dispute had arisen on the basis of Sin-
dall's letter, enclosing further information in support of the claim for an extension of
time requesting a response within seven days. he contract administrator should have
been given sufficient time to make up his mind before the inference could be drawn
that the absence of a substantive reply meant that there was a dispute. However, the
adjudicator had jurisdiction in relation to the dispute because the dispute before him
concerned the determination issue. As an integral part of this was the time within
which the works should have been completed, it involved considering the extension
of time claim.
The judge favoured a wide interpretation of 'dispute' to encompass all matters that
are contentious between the parties at the relevant time. Specifically, the judge said
that the courts should endeavour to adopt a pragmatic approach to adjudication as
opposed to a legalistic approach.
