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.
They join us from Great James Street Chambers. Nick is an experienced leading junior, noted for his particular ability to cut through complex issues of fact and law in order to get to the heart of the case. Nick’s practice is in defending clients…
This week Anirudh Mandagere has written a longer briefing on the use by lawyers of artificial intelligence and how to avoid being accused of negligence (it’s not as straightforward as you may think); the link to his briefing is here. Meanwhile Sarah Prager KC draws…
The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce have produced a Legal Statement on Liability for AI Harms. Given that very few cases have reached the courts, the Legal Statement provides much-needed guidance to legal advisors and representatives. In this article Anirudh Mandagere sets out the key aspects of…
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR