Alleged bias and procedural unfairness by an adjudicator appointed to determine a dispute in relation to a construction contract.
Held: The principles of the common law rules of natural justice and procedural fairness were two-fold. A professional person acting as arbitrator is bound by the principles of natural justice just as would be a judge in court. However, since the appointment itself was invalid, the decision was not open to challenge on this basis. The decision of an adjudicator as to his own standing was of no effect, and therefore a party was not affected by his decision.
Kennedy LJ, Chadwick LJ, Dyson LJ
 EWCA Civ 1418, Times 08-Nov-2004,  EWCA Civ 1535,  BLR 1
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
England and Wales
Appeal from – AMEC Capital Projects Ltd v Whitefriars City Estates Ltd TCC 27-Feb-2004
Cited – Locabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .
Cited – London Borough of Ealing and others v Jan CA 7-Feb-2002
Appeal from findings of breaches of injunctions. . .
See Also – AMEC Capital Projects Ltd v Whitefriars City Estate Ltd TCC 19-Sep-2003
Application to enforce adjudicators award, and application to stay same. . .
Cited – Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd CA 16-Nov-2005
The parties had disputed payments for subcontracting work on a major project. The matter had been referred to arbitration, and the claimants now appealed refusal of leave to appeal the adjudicator’s award.
Held: The dispute was complex and . .
Cited – Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard TCC 26-Apr-2005
Application for leave to appeal against arbitrator’s award in construction dispute.
Held: The appeal was declined. . .
Cited – Henry v London Metropolitan University EAT 19-Sep-2006
EAT The Appellant was found by the Tribunal to have been victimised and discriminated against in three respects; in two cases at the hands of Mr Williams who commenced disciplinary proceedings against him and in . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2021; Ref: scu.218864