More can be less efficient
Atkinson, D.
More can be less efficient - 2003 - Construction News (6815) 8 May 2003, 12(1) Contract Journal 419(6433) 2 July 2003, 18(1) .
"Pring and St Hill Ltd v C J Hafner" ([2002] EWHC 1775 (TCC), unreported) deals with whether the scheme for construction contracts allows an adjudicator to adjudicate at the same time on related disputes under different contracts with the consent of the parties. Sir Robert McAlpine had engaged Pring (P) to install glazing on a new building. The glazing was damaged and had to be replaced. Four firms could have caused the damage and four separate cases with the same adjudicator were started to apportion responsibility. P was found liable which then acted against its sub-subcontractor Hafner (H). H did not pay the full amount awarded to P, who then sought enforcement. H's objections to the ruling were manifold, but ultimately this highlights that an adjudicator in this position may be at risk of bias and if one party does not give its consent to parallel adjudications and the adjudication proceeds anyway, he will not have jurisdiction and his decision will be overruled. View judgment at www.bailii.org.
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES
PRING AND ST HILL LTD V C J HAFNER
More can be less efficient - 2003 - Construction News (6815) 8 May 2003, 12(1) Contract Journal 419(6433) 2 July 2003, 18(1) .
"Pring and St Hill Ltd v C J Hafner" ([2002] EWHC 1775 (TCC), unreported) deals with whether the scheme for construction contracts allows an adjudicator to adjudicate at the same time on related disputes under different contracts with the consent of the parties. Sir Robert McAlpine had engaged Pring (P) to install glazing on a new building. The glazing was damaged and had to be replaced. Four firms could have caused the damage and four separate cases with the same adjudicator were started to apportion responsibility. P was found liable which then acted against its sub-subcontractor Hafner (H). H did not pay the full amount awarded to P, who then sought enforcement. H's objections to the ruling were manifold, but ultimately this highlights that an adjudicator in this position may be at risk of bias and if one party does not give its consent to parallel adjudications and the adjudication proceeds anyway, he will not have jurisdiction and his decision will be overruled. View judgment at www.bailii.org.
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES
PRING AND ST HILL LTD V C J HAFNER