Image from Google Jackets

Adjudicator's enforcement

By: Series: Contract Journal ; 410(6340) 15 August 2001, 20(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Examines the issue raised in "C & B Scene Concept Design Ltd v Isobars Ltd", TCC 20 June 2001, regarding whether an adjudicator's perceived error can be categorised as an exess of jurisdition. C & B had to apply for adjudication over its entitlement to three interim payments for which Isobars had not given any notice for payment or withholding. The adjudicator held the interim payments should be made under clause 30.3.5 of the JCT Design and Build form but Isobars argued that the adjudicator should not have relied on this clause, therefore his decision was invalid. This was supported by QC Moxon Browne and implies that the courts may be developing a more interventionist approach to the processes for enforcement of adjudicator's decisions by characterising adjudicator's errors as matters of adjudication.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Journal article London Journal article ABS64355 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 114348-1001

Examines the issue raised in "C & B Scene Concept Design Ltd v Isobars Ltd", TCC 20 June 2001, regarding whether an adjudicator's perceived error can be categorised as an exess of jurisdition. C & B had to apply for adjudication over its entitlement to three interim payments for which Isobars had not given any notice for payment or withholding. The adjudicator held the interim payments should be made under clause 30.3.5 of the JCT Design and Build form but Isobars argued that the adjudicator should not have relied on this clause, therefore his decision was invalid. This was supported by QC Moxon Browne and implies that the courts may be developing a more interventionist approach to the processes for enforcement of adjudicator's decisions by characterising adjudicator's errors as matters of adjudication.