000			01917cab a2200217 4500
001			##L136020
008			070103n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u136020
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aHart Investments Ltd v Fidler and another
260			_c2006
520			_a[2006] EWHC 2857 (TCC), 3 November 2006. Considered whether a referral was valid, having been served eight days after the notice of adjudication. Claimant (H) engaged second defendant (L) to carry out building works at a property and first defendant (F) provided engineering services. In the main action, L applied to set aside default judgment obtained by H regarding a claim for damages arising out of a collapsed wall. L also applied for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator?s decision. A referral was provided eight days after the notice of intention, rather than the seven days as required by the Scheme for Construction Contracts, and although H noted the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction, the adjudication continued and the adjudicator made a decision in L's favour. "Held": L's claim for summary judgment failed. The referral should have been served within seven days of the notice of adjudication and late service of the referral meant it was invalid. The adjudicator had no jurisdiction and his decision was a nullity.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aHART INVESTMENTS LTD V FIDLER AND ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aSCHEME FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (ENGLAND AND WALES) REGULATIONS 1998
650	2	4	_aHOUSING GRANTS, CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996 S107
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2006/2857.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c78099 _d78099