Once made, an award by an adjudicator under the Scheme was enforceable immediately and should be enforced by writ and application for summary judgment, provided only that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to make the award. It remained payable immediately despite any intention to challenge. The Act and Regulations were discussed by the Court: ‘The intention of Parliament in enacting the Act was plain. It was to introduce a speedy mechanism for settling disputes in construction contracts on a provisional interim basis, and requiring the decisions of adjudicators to be enforced pending final determination of disputes by arbitration, litigation or agreement: see section 108(3) of the Act and paragraph 23(2) of Part 1 of the Scheme. The timetable for adjudications is very tight (see section 108 of the Act). Many would say unreasonably tight, and likely to result in injustice. Parliament must be taken to have been aware of this. So far as procedure is concerned, the adjudicator is given a fairly free hand. It is true (but hardly surprising) that he is required to act impartially (s 108(2)(e) of the Act and paragraph 12(a) of Part 1 of the Scheme). He is, however, permitted to take the initiative in ascertaining the facts and the law (s 108(2)(f) of the Act and paragraph 13 of Part 1 of the Scheme). He may, therefore, conduct an entirely inquisitorial process, or he may, as in the present case, invite representations from the parties. It is clear that Parliament intended that the adjudication should be conducted in a manner which those familiar with the grinding detail of the traditional approach to the resolution of construction disputes apparently find difficult to accept. But Parliament has not abolished arbitration and litigation of construction disputes. It has merely introduced an intervening provisional stage in the dispute resolution process. Crucially, it has made it clear that decisions of adjudicators are binding and are to be complied with until the dispute is finally resolved.’
Dyson J
Gazette 10-Mar-1999, Times 11-Mar-1999, [1999] EWHC Technology 254, (1999) 64 Con LR 1, [1999] BLR 93
Bailii
Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (1988 No 649)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Distinguished – Ritchie Brothers (Pwc) Limited v David Philp (Commercials) Limited IHCS 24-Mar-2005
The adjudicator had delivered his decision out of time. The pursuer sought to enforce it. The defender aid that if it was delivered out of time it was void.
Held: The expiry of the time limit deprived the arbitrator of jursidcition to decide . .
Cited – Ritchie Brothers (Pwc) Limited v David Philp (Commercials) Limited IHCS 24-Mar-2005
The adjudicator had delivered his decision out of time. The pursuer sought to enforce it. The defender aid that if it was delivered out of time it was void.
Held: The expiry of the time limit deprived the arbitrator of jursidcition to decide . .
Approved – Tally Wiejl (UK) Ltd v Pegram Shopfitters Ltd CA 21-Nov-2003
. .
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 – 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 – Discain Project Services Ltd v Opecrime Development Ltd TCC 11-Apr-2001
. .
Cited – Alexander and Law Ltd v Coveside (21BPR) Ltd TCC 12-Dec-2013
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award. The respondent resisted, saying that the claimant faced unresolved insolvency proceedings, and may be unable to repay any sum later found due. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Construction, Arbitration
Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.136059
