Having recently done a case about an adjudicator’s jurisdiction, I noticed that in UNIVERSAL PILING & CONSTRUCTION LTD v VG CLEMENTS LTD a declaration was sought such whereby an adjudicator could not conduct a valuation of works under a construction contract because it was alleged that the issue was the same (or substantially similar) to what had been determined in an earlier adjudication.
In a decision from earlier this month, O’Farell J in the TCC held that the contractor was seeking to refer a different dispute involving a different period of valuation. Accordingly, the adjudicator was entitled to perform what he was being invited to do.
The case is another reminder that jurisdiction arguments need to be clear-cut for them to persuade a judge that an adjudication should not be allowed to proceed.
In this webinar, Simon Trigger will provide an update on non-party costs orders. He will consider case law concerning non-party costs orders and the circumstances in which a costs order can be pursued against a party other than the claimant in credit hire and low…
This week the team turns its attention to flying for leisure, and in particular the Regulation 12 right to a refund – and, perhaps more esoterically, whether such flights can ever be justified at all. We do hope so, because we will be flying to…
Deka Chambers will be in attendance at the Cambridge Annual Medico-Legal Conference. Stuart McKechnie KC, who also co-organises the conference, will be chairing a session on catastrophic injuries. Laura Johnson KC will be speaking on psychiatric injuries after Paul, and ex Member of Chambers, Mr…
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR