Chern v Apiloa Corporation & Anor, Court of Appeal - Technology and Construction Court, November 07, 2018, [2018] EWHC 3025 (TCC)

Resolution Date:November 07, 2018
Issuing Organization:Technology and Construction Court
Actores:Chern v Apiloa Corporation & Anor
 
FREE EXCERPT

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 3025 (TCC)

Case No: HT-2018-000200

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT

Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building

Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL

Date: 07/11/2018

Before :

MR JUSTICE FRASER

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

Between :

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

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

MR. B. PATTEN QC (instructed by Goodman Derrick) for the Claimant

MR. R. HUSSAIN QC (instructed by Womble Bond Dickinson) for the Second Defendant

Hearing dates: 12 October 2018

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

Mr Justice Fraser :

1 This is an application by the second defendant in a multi-party action that was started in the Technology and Construction list in the Central London County Court. The application is to transfer the case from the County Court to the Technology and Construction Court which, as everyone knows, is a specialist list in the High Court, and part of the Business and Property Courts.

2 The claim is brought by an adjudicator called Dr. Chern who is a well-known adjudicator who name has appeared from time to time in other decisions, and he conducted an adjudication which led to a decision dated 16 August 2017. It was a Scheme adjudication which means it was conducted pursuant to the specific rules of the statutory Scheme which is a statutory instrument. Mr. Hussain who appears for the second defendant points out, and I am making no observations or findings about this, that it was a relatively straightforward adjudication decision.

3 Dr. Chern accepted the position argued by the second defendant throughout. I should say that the second defendant was one of the parties to the adjudication and the decision resulted in a finding that quantum would have been £2 million and the claim was, in fact, nil.

4 What then happened is Dr. Chern, who had been paid some monies on account by the parties, considered that he had been underpaid. He started proceedings against the defendants in the sum of approximately £41,000 to seek recovery of those fees. He started those proceedings against both defendants Apilosa Corporation and AR Architecture Ltd because his case is that the fees are not recoverable on a joint and severally liable basis from either of those defendants, and both of the defendants were parties to the adjudication to which I have referred. Only the second defendants appear before me and it appears that only...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL