Image from Google Jackets

The adjudication ambush

By: Series: Contract Journal ; 421(6458) 14 January 2004, 22(1)Publication details: 2004Subject(s): Summary: Looks at issues raised in "London and Amsterdam Properties Ltd v Waterman Partnership Ltd" ([2003] EWHC 3059 (TCC), [2004 BLR 179-205(26). The defendant W was an engineering company retained by claimant L on a large development project. L claimed W had caused critical delays to the project by failing to release design information by set dates. W denied liability. L served notice to seek adjudication. W submitted that the adjudicator's decision should not be enforced for various reasons, including that W had been ambushed and there was procedural unfairness in L's late reliance on significant new material, which it had failed to supply to W before the referral. Enforcement of the adjudicator's decision was refused on the grounds that it was a breach of natural justice as W had not had time to take into account the fresh documentation.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Journal article London Journal article ABS67513 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 125327-1001

Looks at issues raised in "London and Amsterdam Properties Ltd v Waterman Partnership Ltd" ([2003] EWHC 3059 (TCC), [2004 BLR 179-205(26). The defendant W was an engineering company retained by claimant L on a large development project. L claimed W had caused critical delays to the project by failing to release design information by set dates. W denied liability. L served notice to seek adjudication. W submitted that the adjudicator's decision should not be enforced for various reasons, including that W had been ambushed and there was procedural unfairness in L's late reliance on significant new material, which it had failed to supply to W before the referral. Enforcement of the adjudicator's decision was refused on the grounds that it was a breach of natural justice as W had not had time to take into account the fresh documentation.