Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2008] EWHC 282 (TCC), 27 February 2008. Considers issues relating to natural justice, jurisdiction and the possible severability of parts of an adjudicator's decision. Claimant company (C) was engaged by defendant company (U) to carry out building works under a JCT standard form contract containing the standard adjudication clause. Disputes arose regarding C's claimed entitlement to extensions of time, which included a particular 13 week period, with related loss and expense. At adjudication, the adjudicator identified a later period of over nine weeks prolongation for which C was entitled to be compensated. U argued that the adjudicator should have made his decision based on the 13-week period and had therefore exceeded his jurisdiction and failed to comply with the rules of natural justice. C sought to enforce the adjudicator's decision. "Held": judgment for C; the adjudicator's decision to make the award for the recovery of prolongation costs arising out of a later period rather than the 13 week period specified in the original claim did not result in a material breach of the rules of natural justice.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 143025-2001 |
[2008] EWHC 282 (TCC), 27 February 2008. Considers issues relating to natural justice, jurisdiction and the possible severability of parts of an adjudicator's decision. Claimant company (C) was engaged by defendant company (U) to carry out building works under a JCT standard form contract containing the standard adjudication clause. Disputes arose regarding C's claimed entitlement to extensions of time, which included a particular 13 week period, with related loss and expense. At adjudication, the adjudicator identified a later period of over nine weeks prolongation for which C was entitled to be compensated. U argued that the adjudicator should have made his decision based on the 13-week period and had therefore exceeded his jurisdiction and failed to comply with the rules of natural justice. C sought to enforce the adjudicator's decision. "Held": judgment for C; the adjudicator's decision to make the award for the recovery of prolongation costs arising out of a later period rather than the 13 week period specified in the original claim did not result in a material breach of the rules of natural justice.