Damond Lock Grabowski & Partners v Laing Investments (Bracknell) Ltd
Damond Lock Grabowski & Partners v Laing Investments (Bracknell) Ltd
- 1992
- Construction Industry Law Letter 1992 CILL 762-765(4) .
ORC 9 April 1992. L were the employers of a major project, D were the architects and C were the main contractors. Completion was delayed and C made a substantial claim for loss and expense. After consideration a payment of £288,000 was made by L to C. C considered this insufficient and commenced arbitration against L. L issued proceedings against C and L claiming against C a declaration that they had no contractual right to any further extension of time or loss and expense and against D damages for negligence and an indemnity against any claims of C`s which might be successful. L gave notice of arbitration to D and suggested that the same arbitrator be used, D objected however the same one was appointed. D objected again. The arbitrator continued with the arbitration and requested points of defence and counterclaims. D claimed misconduct by the arbitrator as he would not or could not fairly determine the issues in the arbitration on the evidence and arguements before him and kept req
LOSS AND EXPENSE
ORC 9 April 1992. L were the employers of a major project, D were the architects and C were the main contractors. Completion was delayed and C made a substantial claim for loss and expense. After consideration a payment of £288,000 was made by L to C. C considered this insufficient and commenced arbitration against L. L issued proceedings against C and L claiming against C a declaration that they had no contractual right to any further extension of time or loss and expense and against D damages for negligence and an indemnity against any claims of C`s which might be successful. L gave notice of arbitration to D and suggested that the same arbitrator be used, D objected however the same one was appointed. D objected again. The arbitrator continued with the arbitration and requested points of defence and counterclaims. D claimed misconduct by the arbitrator as he would not or could not fairly determine the issues in the arbitration on the evidence and arguements before him and kept req
LOSS AND EXPENSE