Quartzelec Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd, Court of Appeal - Technology and Construction Court, December 05, 2008, [2008] EWHC 3315 (TCC)

Reporting Judge: [2008] EWHC 3315 (TCC)

President: Quartzelec Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd

Linked as:

Extract

Quartzelec Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd, Court of Appeal - Technology and Construction Court, December 05, 2008, [2008] EWHC 3315 (TCC)

Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 3315 (TCC)

Case No: TCC10908

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY

TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT

Manchester Civil Justice Centre,

1 Bridge Street West,

Manchester, M60 9DJ

Date of draft judgment: 18 November 2008

Date judgment handed down: 5 December 2008

Before :

His Honour Judge Stephen Davies

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fionnuala McCredie (instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) for the Claimant

Sean Brannigan (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP) for the Defendant

Hearing dates: 7 November 2008

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JudgmentHis Honour Judge Stephen Davies:

Introduction

1. In this case the Claimant seeks summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's decision. The Defendant resists enforcement on the grounds that: (a) the adjudicator misconstrued his jurisdiction by declining to consider a discrete ground of defence raised by the Defendant; (b) in failing to consider that ground of defence the adjudicator acted in breach of the rules of natural justice; (c) as a result the decision as a whole is invalidated and rendered unenforceable. The Claimant contends that: (i) the jurisdiction and natural justice defences have no substance; (ii) even if they do have any substance, the decision can be severed and that part which is unaffected can be enforced.

2. In summary, the relevant facts are as follows. (1) The Claimant considered that the Defendant had been wrong to exclude from certain interim valuations certain sums claimed in respect of a particular change to the scope of the works (`the scope change'). (2) The Claimant submitted that dispute to adjudication. (3) One defence (`the omission defence') raised for the first time before the adjudicator was that the interim valuations had, in error, not included a deduction for cost savings due to a separate variation omitting part of the works, and that this amount (which the Defendant contended was worth approximately £35,0...

See the full content of this document