Image from Google Jackets

OSC Building Services Limited v Interior Dimensions Contracts Limited [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2009Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2009] EWHC 248 (TCC), 08 January 2009. The case considers whether an adjudicator can decide the value of an interim payment when the notice of adjudication refers to a dispute about a final account payment. Interior Dimensions Contract Limited (D), main contractor, engaged OSC Building Services Limited (O) to carry out drainage and site access works. Upon completion, O sent an application for payment entitled "Draft final account". D disagreed on the amount and referred the case to adjudication. The adjudicator ordered D to pay a lump sum. The case went to court, where D argued that this money could not be paid because the adjudicator considered the case as an interim account dispute. "Held": The judge concluded that the dispute was about the disagreement on the amount to be paid. The judge decided that the dispute referred was not a final account. The adjudicator was entitled to decide the sum of the interim payment despite the wording of the adjudication notice.

[2009] EWHC 248 (TCC), 08 January 2009. The case considers whether an adjudicator can decide the value of an interim payment when the notice of adjudication refers to a dispute about a final account payment. Interior Dimensions Contract Limited (D), main contractor, engaged OSC Building Services Limited (O) to carry out drainage and site access works. Upon completion, O sent an application for payment entitled "Draft final account". D disagreed on the amount and referred the case to adjudication. The adjudicator ordered D to pay a lump sum. The case went to court, where D argued that this money could not be paid because the adjudicator considered the case as an interim account dispute. "Held": The judge concluded that the dispute was about the disagreement on the amount to be paid. The judge decided that the dispute referred was not a final account. The adjudicator was entitled to decide the sum of the interim payment despite the wording of the adjudication notice.