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.
This week’s Dekagram covers the court system from top to bottom, domestically and internationally. Sarah Prager KC examines two recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union relating to air travel, a decision considering the enforcement jurisdiction of the County Court, and…
In this week’s dekagram Dominique Smith examines the all-important topic of Part 36 offers, and the knotty question of whether and how they can be withdrawn, whilst Russell Wilcox considers what currency costs orders should be made in. When can a Part 36 Offer be…
In this week’s Dekagram Kerry Nicholson considers whether there’s any way around a failure to serve an N510 form on time when issuing a claim, and Robbie Parkin examines a quite extraordinary case which looks set to rumble on through the courts for years to…
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR