Image from Google Jackets

The Dorchester Hotel Limited v Vivid Interiors Limited [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2009Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2009] EWHC 70 (TCC), 19 January 2009. The case considers a dispute over a final account claim, a complaint of an adjudication timetable too short to allow proper examination of documentation and the possibility of a breach of natural justice. The Dorchester Hotel Ltd (D) contracted with Vivid Interiors Ltd (V) for refurbishment works. Once works completed, V sent its final account to D. In December 2008, V commenced adjudication proceedings in respect with payment for his works. The date of the end of adjudication was extended to 28 February 2009. As documentation, V gave a referral notice with 37 arch files. V also produced a different final account than the previous one. D argued that the timetable was too tight to examine the new evidence and the revised figures, and that there was a risk of natural breach of justice. V argued that the court had no jurisdiction to intervene in an ongoing adjudication. "Held": The court has jurisdiction to intervene, particularly if there has been or will be a breach of natural justice. However, this should be done in exceptional cases. The judge could not at this stage state that there would be a breach of natural justice. The timetable could still reach a fair result. The claimant could still use his claim of breach of natural justice in the future if unhappy with adjudicator's decision.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE JUDGMENT (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 146824-2001

[2009] EWHC 70 (TCC), 19 January 2009. The case considers a dispute over a final account claim, a complaint of an adjudication timetable too short to allow proper examination of documentation and the possibility of a breach of natural justice. The Dorchester Hotel Ltd (D) contracted with Vivid Interiors Ltd (V) for refurbishment works. Once works completed, V sent its final account to D. In December 2008, V commenced adjudication proceedings in respect with payment for his works. The date of the end of adjudication was extended to 28 February 2009. As documentation, V gave a referral notice with 37 arch files. V also produced a different final account than the previous one. D argued that the timetable was too tight to examine the new evidence and the revised figures, and that there was a risk of natural breach of justice. V argued that the court had no jurisdiction to intervene in an ongoing adjudication. "Held": The court has jurisdiction to intervene, particularly if there has been or will be a breach of natural justice. However, this should be done in exceptional cases. The judge could not at this stage state that there would be a breach of natural justice. The timetable could still reach a fair result. The claimant could still use his claim of breach of natural justice in the future if unhappy with adjudicator's decision.