header-logo header-logo

Adjudication

22 November 2013
Issue: 7585 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Roe Brickwork Ltd v Wates Construction Ltd [2013] EWHC 3417 (TCC), [2013] All ER (D) 105 (Nov)

It was established law that the court would not interfere with the decision of an adjudicator who had answered the question referred to him even though the court took the view that the answer was wrong or that the adjudicator had made an obvious mistake. If an adjudicator had it in mind to determine a point wholly or partly on the basis of material that had not been put before him by the parties, he had to give them an opportunity to make submissions on it.  By contrast, there was no rule that a judge, arbitrator or adjudicator had to decide a case only by accepting the submissions of one party or another. An adjudicator could reach a decision on a point of importance on the material before him on a basis for which neither party had contended, provided that the parties were aware of the relevant material and that the issues to which it gave rise had been fairly canvassed

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll