In this case the TCC re-visited the question of the extent of the adjudicator’s jurisdiction when deciding a dispute arising from a construction dispute.
AECOM sought a declaration that the adjudicator had acted outsider her jurisdiction, or alternatively in breach of natural justice, in respect of certain parts of her decision. The dispute arose out of the termination of a sub-contract in the NEC Engineering and Construction Short Subcontract form. Staptina applied to the adjudicator for a declaration that AECOM was not entitled to make any deductions against its termination account for alleged defects. The adjudicator held that AECOM were in principle entitled to make deductions. She then went on to hold that those deductions must be confined to the sum it would have cost Staptina to remedy the relevant defect either before completion or during the defect correction period. AECOM challenged this second aspect of the decision, arguing that all the adjudicator was entitled to do was simply to answer the dispute referred to her as either ‘yes’, the deductions could be made, or ‘no’.
Fraser J disagreed. In Amey Wye Valley Valley Ltd v Herefordshire District Council  EWHC 2368 (TCC) he commented that adjudicator’s decisions will be enforced by the courts, regardless of errors of fact or law. Attempting to define a dispute by reference to there being only two permissible answers is one fraught with difficulty, not least because adjudicators are entitled to be wrong. Furthermore, when the issue was ‘deductions for the costs of defects’, the dispute included how such deductions were to be calculated. In any case, the Response had widened the jurisdiction of the adjudicator to encompass the point.
As for the alleged breach of natural justice in failing to allow AECOM to comment on this issue, Fraser J held that she had been entitled to decide this point on a basis for which neither party had contended. The point was one of contractual interpretation: all of the relevant material was available. The adjudicator was not bound to accept only one of two alternatives put by the parties, and was entitled to select an answer that neither had expressly proposed.
David Sawtell / 1st Jun 2017
The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.
If you like what you've read but want to know more about how we can help you, simply call us:
Alternatively you can send us an email and a member of our team will contact you as soon as possible.