Birmingham City Council v Paddison Construction Limited
Birmingham City Council v Paddison Construction Limited
- 2008
[2008] EWHC 2254 (TCC), 25 September 2008. The case turned around whether a party can refer to adjudication a dispute that has already been subjected to an adjudicator's decision. Paddison Construction Limited (P) started adjudication proceedings against Birmingham City Council (B) for delay and losses in connexion with a construction project, which it completed 18 months earlier. B refused to be held responsible for delay and losses. The adjudicator allowed an extension of time, but refused to grant further monies. He proposed P to pursue its loss and expense claim through a second adjudication. A second adjudication was started. B contested it on the basis that the amount was different but that the dispute was substantially the same as in the first adjudication. Held: The judge concluded that the first adjudicator had made a decision about the loss and expense claim. Even though the amount claimed was different, the court decided that there was no difference in the matters being considered, they were on the same grounds and the material being relied upon was the same. Acting otherwise would result in an abuse of process. Parties should properly prepare their claims before considering adjudication.
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL V PADDISON CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
CIB PROPERTIES LTD V BIRSE CONSTRUCTION LTD
BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LTD V LAMBETH LBC
CANTILLON LTD V URVASCO LTD
VHE CONSTRUCTION V RBSTB TRUST COMPANY
SHERWOOD AND CASSON LTD V MACKENZIE ENGINEERING LTD
HOLT INSULATION V COLT INTERNATIONAL
QUIETFIELD LTD V VASCROFT CONTRACTORS LTD
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] EWHC 2254 (TCC), 25 September 2008. The case turned around whether a party can refer to adjudication a dispute that has already been subjected to an adjudicator's decision. Paddison Construction Limited (P) started adjudication proceedings against Birmingham City Council (B) for delay and losses in connexion with a construction project, which it completed 18 months earlier. B refused to be held responsible for delay and losses. The adjudicator allowed an extension of time, but refused to grant further monies. He proposed P to pursue its loss and expense claim through a second adjudication. A second adjudication was started. B contested it on the basis that the amount was different but that the dispute was substantially the same as in the first adjudication. Held: The judge concluded that the first adjudicator had made a decision about the loss and expense claim. Even though the amount claimed was different, the court decided that there was no difference in the matters being considered, they were on the same grounds and the material being relied upon was the same. Acting otherwise would result in an abuse of process. Parties should properly prepare their claims before considering adjudication.
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL V PADDISON CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
CIB PROPERTIES LTD V BIRSE CONSTRUCTION LTD
BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LTD V LAMBETH LBC
CANTILLON LTD V URVASCO LTD
VHE CONSTRUCTION V RBSTB TRUST COMPANY
SHERWOOD AND CASSON LTD V MACKENZIE ENGINEERING LTD
HOLT INSULATION V COLT INTERNATIONAL
QUIETFIELD LTD V VASCROFT CONTRACTORS LTD
England and Wales--1543-