Once a main contractor chose, under the standard form contract, to have his dispute with one sub-contractor referred to arbitration as part of another dispute with a different contractor, he should complete the procedure within a reasonable time. It was wrong to seek to defer the settlement of one dispute while he sought to reach a settlement with the other, and he had no right to do so.
Judges:
Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Clyde Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough Lord Millett
Citations:
Gazette 17-Aug-2000, Times 11-Aug-2000, [2000] UKHL 46, [2000] 1 WLR 1621
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – M J Gleeson Group Plc v Wyatt of Snetterton Limited CA 1994
The Court rejected a sub-contractor’s argument that a dispute between the main contractor and the employer within the meaning of clause 18(2) can only arise when clause 66 is invoked. The word ‘dispute’ in clause 18(2) must be given its ordinary . .
Cited – Erith Contractors Limited v Costain Civil Engineering Limited 1994
The meaning and effect of clause 18(2) was considered.
Held: It was axiomatic that if the contractor requires the sub-contract dispute to be dealt with jointly with the main contract dispute with the employer in accordance with the provisions . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration, Construction
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159081
