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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll