Image from Google Jackets

DGT Steel and Cladding Ltd v Cubitt Building and Interiors Ltd [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWHC 1584 (TCC), 4 July 2007. Considered whether a temporary stay of court proceedings should be granted pending adjudication of the underlying dispute. Defendant contractor (C) engaged claimant (D) as subcontractor to carry out external cladding works at a project in east London. The subcontract contained an adjudication provision. Disputes arose and D referred a claim to adjudication, based upon the alleged failure by C to operate the contractual mechanism for payment. C defended the claim, and the adjudicator found in C's favour. D commenced proceedings, and C applied to stop the litigation, arguing that the underlying dispute should first be the subject of adjudication. "Held": judgment for C and order made to stay the proceedings. It was found that the subcontract contained a binding adjudication agreement and therefore D was not entitled to commence court proceedings in breach of that provision.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 139848-2001

[2007] EWHC 1584 (TCC), 4 July 2007. Considered whether a temporary stay of court proceedings should be granted pending adjudication of the underlying dispute. Defendant contractor (C) engaged claimant (D) as subcontractor to carry out external cladding works at a project in east London. The subcontract contained an adjudication provision. Disputes arose and D referred a claim to adjudication, based upon the alleged failure by C to operate the contractual mechanism for payment. C defended the claim, and the adjudicator found in C's favour. D commenced proceedings, and C applied to stop the litigation, arguing that the underlying dispute should first be the subject of adjudication. "Held": judgment for C and order made to stay the proceedings. It was found that the subcontract contained a binding adjudication agreement and therefore D was not entitled to commence court proceedings in breach of that provision.