PT Building Services Limited v ROK Build Limited [electronic resource]
PT Building Services Limited v ROK Build Limited [electronic resource]
- 2009
[2008] EWHC 3434 (TCC), 08 December 2008. The case considers whether a party is irrevocably bound by his choice. ROK Build Limited (R) engaged PT Building Services Limited (P) to carry out works for it. They had a dispute over their contract brought to adjudication. P sought enforcement of an adjudicator's decision. R resisted enforcement of this decision on the grounds that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction. P issued a notice of second adjudication. R objected that the second adjudicator had no jurisdiction because the grounds of dispute had already been dealt with by the first adjudication. The second adjudicator resigned. P argued that this argument meant that R was accepting the decision of the first adjudicator as valid and binding. "Held": The judge decided that by using the first decision to persuade the second adjudicator to resign, R was accepting his decision as valid and binding. R could not now resist this first decision in enforcement proceedings.
PT BUILDING SERVICES LIMITED V ROK BUILD LIMITED
NIKKO HOTELS (UK) LTD V MEPC PLC
BOUYGUES UK LTD V DAHL-JENSEN UK LTD
CARILLION CONSTRUCTION LTD V DEVONPORT ROYAL DOCKYARD LTD
HART INVESTMENTS LTD V FIDLER AND ANOTHER
COLLINS (CONTRACTORS) LTD V BALTIC QUAY MANAGEMENT (1994) LTD
AMEC CIVIL ENGINEERING LTD V SOS TRANSPORT
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] EWHC 3434 (TCC), 08 December 2008. The case considers whether a party is irrevocably bound by his choice. ROK Build Limited (R) engaged PT Building Services Limited (P) to carry out works for it. They had a dispute over their contract brought to adjudication. P sought enforcement of an adjudicator's decision. R resisted enforcement of this decision on the grounds that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction. P issued a notice of second adjudication. R objected that the second adjudicator had no jurisdiction because the grounds of dispute had already been dealt with by the first adjudication. The second adjudicator resigned. P argued that this argument meant that R was accepting the decision of the first adjudicator as valid and binding. "Held": The judge decided that by using the first decision to persuade the second adjudicator to resign, R was accepting his decision as valid and binding. R could not now resist this first decision in enforcement proceedings.
PT BUILDING SERVICES LIMITED V ROK BUILD LIMITED
NIKKO HOTELS (UK) LTD V MEPC PLC
BOUYGUES UK LTD V DAHL-JENSEN UK LTD
CARILLION CONSTRUCTION LTD V DEVONPORT ROYAL DOCKYARD LTD
HART INVESTMENTS LTD V FIDLER AND ANOTHER
COLLINS (CONTRACTORS) LTD V BALTIC QUAY MANAGEMENT (1994) LTD
AMEC CIVIL ENGINEERING LTD V SOS TRANSPORT
England and Wales--1543-