header-logo header-logo

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

Adjudication

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll