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 a judgment handed down today, Singh and ors v Ingram (in his capacity as the Liquidator of MSD Cash and Carry PLC) [2025] EWCA Civ 264, Andrew Warnock KC and Gurion Taussig have successfully resisted a costs appeal by the paying party regarding the…
After 6 years as Head and then Joint Head of Chambers of 9 Gough Chambers (formerly 9 Gough Square) and Deka Chambers, Jacob Levy KC will be stepping down from that role. During his 6 years, Jacob successfully guided us through a move to our…
On 28th May 2022, eight hundred supporters of Liverpool Football Club attended the UEFA Champions League Final at the Stade de France in Paris. The event descended into chaos, during the course of which it was alleged that they sustained injuries as a result of…
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR