Image from Google Jackets

Simons Construction Ltd v Aardvark Developments Ltd

Series: Building Law Reports ; [2004] BLR 117-130(14)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2003] EWHC 2474 (TCC), 29 October 2003. Concerns Part 20 claim proceedings brought by S against A as part of a wider dispute over payment of fees claimed by arbitrator B. S claimed that the Adjudicator's Draft Decision marked for the parties comments dated 17 June 2002 and the Adjudicator's Decision (Final Decision) were not valid decisions within the meaning of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s108 and cl30 of the contract between S and A. In its defence A argued that both decisions were valid. There were three issues for consideration: firstly did the adjudicator B reach a decision within the time agreed by the parties; secondly was the draft decision published on 17 June 2002 an effective decision; and thirdly was the decision published on the 25 June 2002 valid. Reference was made to the contractual terms set out in cl39 of the contract and the 1996 Act s108. Held, that the Final Decision dated 25 June 2002 was binding on S and A. B's action for his fees against S and A was stayed pending the outcome of the Part 20 claim. View judgment at courtservice.gov.uk.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS67244 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 124485-1001

[2003] EWHC 2474 (TCC), 29 October 2003. Concerns Part 20 claim proceedings brought by S against A as part of a wider dispute over payment of fees claimed by arbitrator B. S claimed that the Adjudicator's Draft Decision marked for the parties comments dated 17 June 2002 and the Adjudicator's Decision (Final Decision) were not valid decisions within the meaning of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s108 and cl30 of the contract between S and A. In its defence A argued that both decisions were valid. There were three issues for consideration: firstly did the adjudicator B reach a decision within the time agreed by the parties; secondly was the draft decision published on 17 June 2002 an effective decision; and thirdly was the decision published on the 25 June 2002 valid. Reference was made to the contractual terms set out in cl39 of the contract and the 1996 Act s108. Held, that the Final Decision dated 25 June 2002 was binding on S and A. B's action for his fees against S and A was stayed pending the outcome of the Part 20 claim. View judgment at courtservice.gov.uk.