Image from Google Jackets

Cubbitt Building and Interiors Ltd v Fleetglade Ltd [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWHC 3413 (TCC), 21 December 2006. Concerned an adjudication under the JCT adjudication procedure in JCT Standard Form of Building Contract (1998 Edition) and considered both the late service of the referral and the validity of the adjudicator's decision issued a day later than the extended date. Claimant contractors (C) were engaged to carry out the superstructure works at the defendant's (F's) site. Both parties disputed the final certificate, issued by PSP Consultants, and C referred the matter to adjudication. The nominating body, RICS, was slow in securing the appointment of the adjudicator, and F claimed the adjudicator had no jurisdiction. Subsequently, the adjudicator emailed his decision a day after the agreed extended date. F contended the decision was reached out of time and was therefore void and C submitted that the decision was valid. "Held": the adjudicator's decision was enforced. The referral notice was valid and the adjudicator had jurisdiction. In addition, although the adjudicator had no right to delay the completion of his decision in relation to his fees, the adjudicator's decision had been completed in the agreed timescale.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 137086-2001

[2006] EWHC 3413 (TCC), 21 December 2006. Concerned an adjudication under the JCT adjudication procedure in JCT Standard Form of Building Contract (1998 Edition) and considered both the late service of the referral and the validity of the adjudicator's decision issued a day later than the extended date. Claimant contractors (C) were engaged to carry out the superstructure works at the defendant's (F's) site. Both parties disputed the final certificate, issued by PSP Consultants, and C referred the matter to adjudication. The nominating body, RICS, was slow in securing the appointment of the adjudicator, and F claimed the adjudicator had no jurisdiction. Subsequently, the adjudicator emailed his decision a day after the agreed extended date. F contended the decision was reached out of time and was therefore void and C submitted that the decision was valid. "Held": the adjudicator's decision was enforced. The referral notice was valid and the adjudicator had jurisdiction. In addition, although the adjudicator had no right to delay the completion of his decision in relation to his fees, the adjudicator's decision had been completed in the agreed timescale.