All In One Building and Refurbishments Ltd v Makers UK Ltd (Record no. 76416)

MARC details
000 -LEADER
fixed length control field 02597cab a2200169 4500
001 - CONTROL NUMBER
control field ##L132373
008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION
fixed length control field 060131n 000 0 eng u
035 ## - SYSTEM CONTROL NUMBER
System control number (Sirsi) u132373
041 0# - LANGUAGE CODE
Language code of text/sound track or separate title eng
245 00 - TITLE STATEMENT
Title All In One Building and Refurbishments Ltd v Makers UK Ltd
520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC.
Summary, etc. [2005] EWHC 2943 TCC. A was employed as a sub-contractor by M under a construction contract. Following a dispute, M issued both notice of intention to determine the sub-contract, and written confirmation of a verbal instruction to leave the site, purportedly signed by B on M's behalf. A sent a draft assessment of account to M containing a claim for interest and overheads which was not supported by detailed information, which was later referred to adjudication. B then sought to retract an affidavit in which he had sworn that he had not in fact signed the written confirmation. Both parties made submissions on how this evidence should be treated, but the timetable of the adjudication was not adjusted to allow B to give oral evidence. The adjudicator made an award in A's favour, without receiving evidence of retraction. When M did not pay, A issued proceedings. M argued that because the assessed figures were either an interim payment or equivalent to a draft final account, time for payment of which had not lapsed, there was no dispute between the parties; in addition the adjudicator should not have made his decision without giving the parties an opportunity to adduce the retraction evidence, or without actually hearing B's evidence. "Held" (1) Even if a contract prescribed a time when payment fell due, that was not necessarily conclusive as to whether a dispute had arisen; in this case, it was entitlement to payment that was being denied, and whatever the supporting evidence adduced by A in relation to the claim for overheads and interests, it was clear that M would not entertain the claim. (2) Criticisms of how the adjudicator had dealt with B were not matters for the court, even though he had not followed a strict litigation approach; the manner in which he should treat B's evidence had been the subject of submissions by both parties, and M had failed to establish a breach of natural justice.
590 ## - LOCAL NOTE (RLIN)
Local note IKA310106
650 24 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name entry element ALL IN ONE BUILDING & REFURBISHMENTS LTD V MAKERS UK LTD
690 ## - LOCAL SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM (OCLC, RLIN)
Topical term or geographic name as entry element MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION-ADJUDICATORS
856 40 - ELECTRONIC LOCATION AND ACCESS
Uniform Resource Identifier <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2005/2943.html">https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2005/2943.html</a>
Public note View the item free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA)
Suppress in OPAC 0
Holdings
Withdrawn status Lost status Source of classification or shelving scheme Damaged status Not for loan Home library Current library Shelving location Date acquired Total Checkouts Full call number Barcode Date last seen Copy number Price effective from Koha item type
    Dewey Decimal Classification     Virtual Virtual Online 31/01/2006   ONLINE PUBLICATION 132373-1001 06/08/2019 1 06/08/2019 Law report