000 02176cad a22002175a 4500
001 L141909
008 080114e20071025xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035 _a(Sirsi) u141909
041 0 _aeng
245 0 0 _aTreasure and Son Ltd v Martin Dawes
_h[electronic resource]
260 _c2007
520 _a[2007] EWHC 2420 (TCC), 25 October 2007. Considers whether an adjudicator had jurisdiction to hear a dispute arising from an oral variation of the written construction contract and whether the adjudicator's decision had to be signed to be valid. Respondent (D) had engaged applicant (T) to carry out refurbishment and restoration work at his residence pursuant to a contract that incorporated the JCT Standard Form of Prime Cost Contract (1998 Edition with Amendments 1 and 2). A dispute arose as to the non-payment of monies and T referred the dispute to adjudication. The adjudicator held by an unsigned decision that D was liable to pay T approximately £1 000 000. Issues arose as to whether (i) there was an oral variation of the written construction contract that meant that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction; and (ii) the lack of signature on the adjudicator's decision meant it was unenforceable. T applied for summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator's decision. "Held": application granted. The adjudication process was not undermined by the fact that the terms of the original contract that contained the adjudication clause were orally varied. In addition, the contract simply called for the adjudicator to reach a decision and send it to the parties; there was no obligation for him to sign it.
590 _aKA
650 2 4 _aJCT STANDARD FORM OF PRIME COST CONTRACT (1998 EDITION)
650 2 4 _aTREASURE AND SON LTD V MARTIN DAWES
651 4 _aEngland and Wales
_y1543-
690 _aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
690 _aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
856 4 0 _uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2007/2420.html
_zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942 _n0
999 _c79653
_d79653