header-logo header-logo

Adjudication

22 November 2013
Issue: 7585 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Roe Brickwork Ltd v Wates Construction Ltd [2013] EWHC 3417 (TCC), [2013] All ER (D) 105 (Nov)

It was established law that the court would not interfere with the decision of an adjudicator who had answered the question referred to him even though the court took the view that the answer was wrong or that the adjudicator had made an obvious mistake. If an adjudicator had it in mind to determine a point wholly or partly on the basis of material that had not been put before him by the parties, he had to give them an opportunity to make submissions on it.  By contrast, there was no rule that a judge, arbitrator or adjudicator had to decide a case only by accepting the submissions of one party or another. An adjudicator could reach a decision on a point of importance on the material before him on a basis for which neither party had contended, provided that the parties were aware of the relevant material and that the issues to which it gave rise had been fairly canvassed

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll