Lead Technical Services Ltd v CMS Medical [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWCA Civ 316, 30 January 2007. Concerned the incorrect enforcement of an adjudicator's decision. A dispute over fees was referred by respondent consulting engineers (L) to adjudication. Appellant company (C) contended that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute as a deed of appointment had replaced the earlier agreement between the parties, and the adjudication rules in the deed were not the same as in the original agreement. In addition, there had been an oral agreement that L's fees would be capped. The adjudication went in L's favour, L issued proceedings to enforce it, and was granted summary judgment. C appealed. "Held": appeal allowed. The judge had erred in enforcing the adjudicator's decision as there was a real prospect that C could prove the terms contained in the deed that would remove the adjudicator's jurisdiction.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 138432-2001 |
[2007] EWCA Civ 316, 30 January 2007. Concerned the incorrect enforcement of an adjudicator's decision. A dispute over fees was referred by respondent consulting engineers (L) to adjudication. Appellant company (C) contended that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute as a deed of appointment had replaced the earlier agreement between the parties, and the adjudication rules in the deed were not the same as in the original agreement. In addition, there had been an oral agreement that L's fees would be capped. The adjudication went in L's favour, L issued proceedings to enforce it, and was granted summary judgment. C appealed. "Held": appeal allowed. The judge had erred in enforcing the adjudicator's decision as there was a real prospect that C could prove the terms contained in the deed that would remove the adjudicator's jurisdiction.