000 02208cad a22002775a 4500
001 E144630
008 080801e20080307stk v 000 0 eng d
035 _a(Sirsi) u144630
041 0 _aeng
245 0 0 _aApollo Engineering v James Scott Limited
_h[electronic resource]
260 _c2008
520 _a[2008] CSOH 39, 7 March 2008. A, the petitioner, was subcontractor to the respondent, J, and was responsible for the installation of pipework on a floating jetty. Following disputes, the two parties went to arbitration in 2005. In September 2006, following a lengthy amendment to A's case, the arbiter advised that A would be responsible for the costs of the amendment procedure. The arbiter also allowed the appointment of senior counsel and skilled witnesses on behalf of J, the cost of which was to be met by A, and in May 2007 issued a final draft award indicating that most of A's case would be dismissed due to lack of relevancy. A applied for judicial review. Held: petition dismissed. The award of expenses is incidental to an arbiter's award, and does not form part of the award; an arbiter does have an implied power to grant part awards; and an arbiter is within his rights to dismiss part of a claimant's case due to lack of relevancy: it does not come within the remit of a judicial review to consider the merits of such a decision.
590 _aKA
650 2 4 _aROBERT BROWN AND SON LTD V ASSOCIATED FIRECLAY COMPANIES LTD
650 2 4 _aAPC LTD V AMEY CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS
650 2 4 _aFARRANS (CONSTRUCTION) LTD V DUNFERMLINE DISTRICT COUNCIL
650 2 4 _aGRAMPIAN REGIONAL COUNCIL V JOHN G MCGREGOR (CONTRACTORS) LTD
650 2 4 _aPOLLICH V HEATLEY
650 2 4 _aTAYLOR WOODROW CONSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND) LTD V SEARS INVESTMENT TRUST LTD
650 2 4 _aLYLE V FALCONER
650 2 4 _aAPOLLO ENGINEERING V JAMES SCOTT LTD
651 4 _aScotland
_y1999-
690 _aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
856 4 0 _uhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/scot/cases/ScotCS/2008/CSOH_39.html&query=apollo&method=boolean
_zView the judgement free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942 _n0
999 _c80529
_d80529