000			01752cab a2200181 4500
001			##L133764
008			060608n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u133764
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aCapital Structures plc v Time and Tide Construction Ltd
260			_c2006
520			_a[2006] EWHC 591 (TCC) 8 March 2006. C were engaged as subcontractors by T. Following a number of disputes between the parties, which culminated in C withdrawing its labour from site, the employer, K, threatened to take over the development from T, which was potentially disastrous for T. C and T eventually signed a settlement agreement, by which T agreed to pay C £20 000 plus VAT when C had finished work on site. C referred the matter to arbitration when T refused to pay this sum; T argued that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction because it had entered into the settlement under economic duress. The adjudicator rejected this argument, and made an award in favour of C, who then applied for enforcement of his decision. "Held" from the evidence, there was an arguable, although rather shadowy, case that there had been economic duress. If this was established, then the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction. T was given leave to defend, provided it paid into court the amount of the adjudicator's award.
650	2	4	_aCAPITAL STRUCTURES PLC V TIME AND TIDE CONSTRUCTION LTD
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION-ADJUDICATORS-ADJUDICATORS' JURISDICTION
856	4	1	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2006/591.html _zView the item free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c77194 _d77194