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 meaning which prima facie comprehends the case where a claim has been put forward and rejected. Clause 18(2) was capable of causing serious financial difficulties for sub-contractors, but it was not for the court to rewrite the sub-contract in order to substitute its judgment of what was commercially fair between the parties.
Judges:
Steyn L.J
Citations:
[1994] 72 BLR
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lafarge Redlands Aggregates Limited (Formerly Redland Aggregates Limited) v Shephard Hill Civil Engineering Limited HL 27-Jul-2000
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Construction
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.191139
