Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Mott MacDonald Ltd [electronic resource]
Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Mott MacDonald Ltd [electronic resource]
- 2007
[2007] EWHC 20 (TCC), 10 January 2007. Considered differing interpretations of what constituted pertinent records (under a novation agreement) and whether the adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction. Applicant company (M) employed respondent company (D) by a novation agreement for the provision of civil and structural engineering services for the construction of the new Wembley stadium. M wished to gain access to pertinent records held by D, exercising its right under the novation agreement. D refused, querying M's understanding of what constituted records in the context. An adjudicator's award favoured M, but D only offered a limited range of documents. M applied for equitable remedies and for summary judgment against D to enforce the adjudicator's decision. D argued that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to decide the meaning of pertinent records and that D had tried to comply with the adjudicator's decision. "Held": the adjudicator was within his jurisdiction because he was resolving a pre-existing dispute between the parties; he was entitled to formulate his own interpretation of pertinent records, regardless of whether he was right or wrong.
MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTIONS (UK) LTD V MOTT MACDONALD LTD
England and Wales--1543-
[2007] EWHC 20 (TCC), 10 January 2007. Considered differing interpretations of what constituted pertinent records (under a novation agreement) and whether the adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction. Applicant company (M) employed respondent company (D) by a novation agreement for the provision of civil and structural engineering services for the construction of the new Wembley stadium. M wished to gain access to pertinent records held by D, exercising its right under the novation agreement. D refused, querying M's understanding of what constituted records in the context. An adjudicator's award favoured M, but D only offered a limited range of documents. M applied for equitable remedies and for summary judgment against D to enforce the adjudicator's decision. D argued that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to decide the meaning of pertinent records and that D had tried to comply with the adjudicator's decision. "Held": the adjudicator was within his jurisdiction because he was resolving a pre-existing dispute between the parties; he was entitled to formulate his own interpretation of pertinent records, regardless of whether he was right or wrong.
MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTIONS (UK) LTD V MOTT MACDONALD LTD
England and Wales--1543-