Image from Google Jackets

Ardmore Construction Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd

Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] CSOH 3, 12 January 2006. A was the sub-contractor for ground, concrete and drainage, where T was main contractor. A made interim applications to T for payments for five items, one of which was for overtime working. When T refused payment, A referred the matter to adjudication. The adjudicator made awards to A in respect of each item. T continued to refuse to make payment, and argued that, so far as the overtime payments were concerned, the adjudicator had based his decision on the grounds that T had given verbal instructions to A to carry out the work at weekends, or alternatively T had acquiesced in A carrying out the work; at no time before the decision was issued, however, were these matters raised or discussed before the adjudicator. To decide the dispute on this basis was a breach of natural justice, as T had no notice of this or an opportunity to respond. "Held": adjudicators had to observe the principles of natural justice in reaching their decisions. If they behave in a manner which objectively involves a disregard of fair play and which appears to have a substantial and material effect on their decision, then the court must intervene. In this case, from the evidence, there had been such a clear and substantial breach of natural justice. Judgment was given for T.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 132493-1001

[2006] CSOH 3, 12 January 2006. A was the sub-contractor for ground, concrete and drainage, where T was main contractor. A made interim applications to T for payments for five items, one of which was for overtime working. When T refused payment, A referred the matter to adjudication. The adjudicator made awards to A in respect of each item. T continued to refuse to make payment, and argued that, so far as the overtime payments were concerned, the adjudicator had based his decision on the grounds that T had given verbal instructions to A to carry out the work at weekends, or alternatively T had acquiesced in A carrying out the work; at no time before the decision was issued, however, were these matters raised or discussed before the adjudicator. To decide the dispute on this basis was a breach of natural justice, as T had no notice of this or an opportunity to respond. "Held": adjudicators had to observe the principles of natural justice in reaching their decisions. If they behave in a manner which objectively involves a disregard of fair play and which appears to have a substantial and material effect on their decision, then the court must intervene. In this case, from the evidence, there had been such a clear and substantial breach of natural justice. Judgment was given for T.