Image from Google Jackets

OSC Building Services Limited v Interior Dimensions Contracts Limited [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2009Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2009] EWHC 248 (TCC), 08 January 2009. The case considers whether an adjudicator can decide the value of an interim payment when the notice of adjudication refers to a dispute about a final account payment. Interior Dimensions Contract Limited (D), main contractor, engaged OSC Building Services Limited (O) to carry out drainage and site access works. Upon completion, O sent an application for payment entitled "Draft final account". D disagreed on the amount and referred the case to adjudication. The adjudicator ordered D to pay a lump sum. The case went to court, where D argued that this money could not be paid because the adjudicator considered the case as an interim account dispute. "Held": The judge concluded that the dispute was about the disagreement on the amount to be paid. The judge decided that the dispute referred was not a final account. The adjudicator was entitled to decide the sum of the interim payment despite the wording of the adjudication notice.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE JUDGMENT (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 147202-2001

[2009] EWHC 248 (TCC), 08 January 2009. The case considers whether an adjudicator can decide the value of an interim payment when the notice of adjudication refers to a dispute about a final account payment. Interior Dimensions Contract Limited (D), main contractor, engaged OSC Building Services Limited (O) to carry out drainage and site access works. Upon completion, O sent an application for payment entitled "Draft final account". D disagreed on the amount and referred the case to adjudication. The adjudicator ordered D to pay a lump sum. The case went to court, where D argued that this money could not be paid because the adjudicator considered the case as an interim account dispute. "Held": The judge concluded that the dispute was about the disagreement on the amount to be paid. The judge decided that the dispute referred was not a final account. The adjudicator was entitled to decide the sum of the interim payment despite the wording of the adjudication notice.