Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Construction Ltd
Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Construction Ltd
- 2006
[2006] EWCA Civ 1737, 20 December 2006. Appeal by Q against the dismissal of its claim for summary judgment ([2006 EWHC 174 (TCC), L132952] to enforce an adjudicator's decision against the respondent contractor (V). The key issue was whether the adjudicator should have considered V?s revised claim. V's original claim for an extension of time in the first adjudication, which relied on two brief claim letters, was rejected. In the second adjudication V contended it was not liable to pay Q liquidated and ascertained damages because V had been entitled to more time. On this occasion V produced detailed claim of 400 pages. The adjudicator refused to consider V's argument, in accordance with the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, as the issue of extension of time had been determined in the first adjudication. An award in Q's favour was granted, which V declined to pay, and Q issued proceedings. "Held": appeal dismissed. The alleged entitlement to an extension of time relied on in the second adjudication was substantially different from the claim put forward and rejected in the first adjudication. This decision was in the context of an issue (extension of time) where the contract terms allowed certain arguments to be revisited.
SCHEME FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
QUIETFIELD LTD V VASCROFT CONTRACTORS LTD
SCHEME FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (ENGLAND AND WALES) REGULATIONS 1998
HOUSING GRANTS, CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996
England and Wales--1543-
[2006] EWCA Civ 1737, 20 December 2006. Appeal by Q against the dismissal of its claim for summary judgment ([2006 EWHC 174 (TCC), L132952] to enforce an adjudicator's decision against the respondent contractor (V). The key issue was whether the adjudicator should have considered V?s revised claim. V's original claim for an extension of time in the first adjudication, which relied on two brief claim letters, was rejected. In the second adjudication V contended it was not liable to pay Q liquidated and ascertained damages because V had been entitled to more time. On this occasion V produced detailed claim of 400 pages. The adjudicator refused to consider V's argument, in accordance with the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, as the issue of extension of time had been determined in the first adjudication. An award in Q's favour was granted, which V declined to pay, and Q issued proceedings. "Held": appeal dismissed. The alleged entitlement to an extension of time relied on in the second adjudication was substantially different from the claim put forward and rejected in the first adjudication. This decision was in the context of an issue (extension of time) where the contract terms allowed certain arguments to be revisited.
SCHEME FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
QUIETFIELD LTD V VASCROFT CONTRACTORS LTD
SCHEME FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (ENGLAND AND WALES) REGULATIONS 1998
HOUSING GRANTS, CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996
England and Wales--1543-