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.

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.

Previous
Back to results
Next
Close