John Roberts Architects Ltd v Parkcare Homes (No2) Ltd
John Roberts Architects Ltd v Parkcare Homes (No2) Ltd
[2005] EWHC 1637, 25 July 2005. Considered whether an adjudicator ceased to have jurisdiction to award costs when adjudication proceedings were discontinued. J sought to recover its costs in discontinued adjudication proceedings initiated by P. The contract provided that adjudication procedures should adhere to the Scheme for Construction Contracts, and that the adjudicator had discretion to award payment of one party's legal costs and expenses by the other as part of his decision. P abandoned its claim after substantial costs had been incurred. The adjudicator directed that P should pay J's adjudication costs as well as his own fees and disbursements. J argued firstly that the adjudicator was entitled to award costs, secondly that for reasons of business efficacy and to reflect the intention of the parties, it was necessary to imply a term giving the adjudicator the power to make an order for costs, and thirdly that P was estopped from denying that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction. "Held" It was understandable that an adjudication agreement should contain provision for recovery of costs in certain circumstances as the Scheme for Construction Contracts does not, and it was plain that the adjudicator was entitled to direct payment of costs only as part of his decision; a term would not be implied to give business efficacy unless necessary to prevent failure of consideration, and the terms implied by J fell short of this requirement; P had only elected to treat the adjudicator as having jurisdiction in accordance with the contract, and was not electing or promising not to exercise its power to discontinue the adjudication proceedings.
JOHN ROBERTS ARCHITECTS LTD V PARKCARE HOMES LTD
INVESTORS COMPENSATION SCHEME LTD V WEST BROMWICH BUILDING SOCIETY
[2005] EWHC 1637, 25 July 2005. Considered whether an adjudicator ceased to have jurisdiction to award costs when adjudication proceedings were discontinued. J sought to recover its costs in discontinued adjudication proceedings initiated by P. The contract provided that adjudication procedures should adhere to the Scheme for Construction Contracts, and that the adjudicator had discretion to award payment of one party's legal costs and expenses by the other as part of his decision. P abandoned its claim after substantial costs had been incurred. The adjudicator directed that P should pay J's adjudication costs as well as his own fees and disbursements. J argued firstly that the adjudicator was entitled to award costs, secondly that for reasons of business efficacy and to reflect the intention of the parties, it was necessary to imply a term giving the adjudicator the power to make an order for costs, and thirdly that P was estopped from denying that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction. "Held" It was understandable that an adjudication agreement should contain provision for recovery of costs in certain circumstances as the Scheme for Construction Contracts does not, and it was plain that the adjudicator was entitled to direct payment of costs only as part of his decision; a term would not be implied to give business efficacy unless necessary to prevent failure of consideration, and the terms implied by J fell short of this requirement; P had only elected to treat the adjudicator as having jurisdiction in accordance with the contract, and was not electing or promising not to exercise its power to discontinue the adjudication proceedings.
JOHN ROBERTS ARCHITECTS LTD V PARKCARE HOMES LTD
INVESTORS COMPENSATION SCHEME LTD V WEST BROMWICH BUILDING SOCIETY