000 02184cab a22002295a 4500
001 L136967
008 070307e2006 xxk 000 0 eng d
035 _a(Sirsi) u136967
041 0 _aeng
245 _aQuietfield Ltd v Vascroft Construction Ltd
260 _c2006
520 _a[2006] EWCA Civ 1737, 20 December 2006. Appeal by Q against the dismissal of its claim for summary judgment ([2006 EWHC 174 (TCC), L132952] to enforce an adjudicator's decision against the respondent contractor (V). The key issue was whether the adjudicator should have considered V?s revised claim. V's original claim for an extension of time in the first adjudication, which relied on two brief claim letters, was rejected. In the second adjudication V contended it was not liable to pay Q liquidated and ascertained damages because V had been entitled to more time. On this occasion V produced detailed claim of 400 pages. The adjudicator refused to consider V's argument, in accordance with the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, as the issue of extension of time had been determined in the first adjudication. An award in Q's favour was granted, which V declined to pay, and Q issued proceedings. "Held": appeal dismissed. The alleged entitlement to an extension of time relied on in the second adjudication was substantially different from the claim put forward and rejected in the first adjudication. This decision was in the context of an issue (extension of time) where the contract terms allowed certain arguments to be revisited.
590 _aKA
650 2 4 _aSCHEME FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
650 2 4 _aQUIETFIELD LTD V VASCROFT CONTRACTORS LTD
650 2 4 _aSCHEME FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (ENGLAND AND WALES) REGULATIONS 1998
650 2 4 _aHOUSING GRANTS, CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996
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/EWCA/Civ/2006/1737.html
_zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942 _n0
999 _c78512
_d78512