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.
Chambers congratulates Adam Dawson upon being awarded an MBE for services to charity and service to the Jewish Community. For over 30 years Adam has been involved in the heart of the Jewish community, leading several charities and organisations. After a year as Chair of…
This week Russell Wilcox and Thomas Clarke examine whether in applications to set aside default judgment there exists such a thing as a ‘co-defendant principle’; essential reading for all practitioners. Co-defendants and Applications to Set Aside: the More the Merrier? In the recent case of…
Introduction On Wednesday 21st of May, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in the long-awaited case of URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21. The judgment was awaited by almost all with an interest in construction law and related professional negligence. BDW…
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR