The Dorchester Hotel Limited v Vivid Interiors Limited [electronic resource]
The Dorchester Hotel Limited v Vivid Interiors Limited [electronic resource]
- 2009
[2009] EWHC 70 (TCC), 19 January 2009. The case considers a dispute over a final account claim, a complaint of an adjudication timetable too short to allow proper examination of documentation and the possibility of a breach of natural justice. The Dorchester Hotel Ltd (D) contracted with Vivid Interiors Ltd (V) for refurbishment works. Once works completed, V sent its final account to D. In December 2008, V commenced adjudication proceedings in respect with payment for his works. The date of the end of adjudication was extended to 28 February 2009. As documentation, V gave a referral notice with 37 arch files. V also produced a different final account than the previous one. D argued that the timetable was too tight to examine the new evidence and the revised figures, and that there was a risk of natural breach of justice. V argued that the court had no jurisdiction to intervene in an ongoing adjudication. "Held": The court has jurisdiction to intervene, particularly if there has been or will be a breach of natural justice. However, this should be done in exceptional cases. The judge could not at this stage state that there would be a breach of natural justice. The timetable could still reach a fair result. The claimant could still use his claim of breach of natural justice in the future if unhappy with adjudicator's decision.
DORCHESTER HOTEL LIMITED V VIVID INTERIORS LIMITED
VITPOL BUILDING SERVICE V SAMEN
CJP BUILDERS LIMITED V WILLIAM VERRY LIMITED
England and Wales--1543-
[2009] EWHC 70 (TCC), 19 January 2009. The case considers a dispute over a final account claim, a complaint of an adjudication timetable too short to allow proper examination of documentation and the possibility of a breach of natural justice. The Dorchester Hotel Ltd (D) contracted with Vivid Interiors Ltd (V) for refurbishment works. Once works completed, V sent its final account to D. In December 2008, V commenced adjudication proceedings in respect with payment for his works. The date of the end of adjudication was extended to 28 February 2009. As documentation, V gave a referral notice with 37 arch files. V also produced a different final account than the previous one. D argued that the timetable was too tight to examine the new evidence and the revised figures, and that there was a risk of natural breach of justice. V argued that the court had no jurisdiction to intervene in an ongoing adjudication. "Held": The court has jurisdiction to intervene, particularly if there has been or will be a breach of natural justice. However, this should be done in exceptional cases. The judge could not at this stage state that there would be a breach of natural justice. The timetable could still reach a fair result. The claimant could still use his claim of breach of natural justice in the future if unhappy with adjudicator's decision.
DORCHESTER HOTEL LIMITED V VIVID INTERIORS LIMITED
VITPOL BUILDING SERVICE V SAMEN
CJP BUILDERS LIMITED V WILLIAM VERRY LIMITED
England and Wales--1543-