Midland Expressway Ltd & Ors v Carillion Construction Ltd & Ors (No. 3) [2006] EWHC 1505 (TCC) (13 June 2006)

Midland Expressway Ltd & Ors v Carillion Construction Ltd & Ors (No. 3) [2006] EWHC 1505 (TCC) (13 June 2006)

At the time of the Dennys adjudication, there was no subsisting dispute between MEL and CAMBBA as to the indirect costs of DC11 because CAMBBA had withdrawn its claim and MEL did not advance any independent claim. The adjudicator was correct to decline jurisdiction over the indirect costs claim. Withdrawal of the claim did not preclude CAMBBA from advancing a future claim for indirect costs based on revised facts or legal arguments. The claimants are not entitled to declarations or orders barring future claims for indirect costs, as the issue has not been finally determined on its merits.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1505 (TCC)
Parties
First Claimant: Midland Expressway Limited (trading as m6 toll); Second Claimant: Secretary of State for Transport; First Defendant (cambba Jv): Carillion Construction Limited; Second Defendant (cambba Jv): Alfred McAlpine Construction Limited; Third Defendant (cambba Jv): Balfour Beatty Group Limited; Fourth Defendant (cambba Jv): AMEC Capital Projects Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (technology and Construction Court) / Judgment on Challenge to Adjudicator's Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Dispute Resolution, Res Judicata, Contractual Interpretation, Claims for Direct and Indirect Costs
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Dispute Resolution Res Judicata Contractual Interpretation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Midland Expressway Limited (trading as m6 toll)

First Claimant

Secretary of State for Transport

Second Claimant

Carillion Construction Limited

First Defendant (cambba Jv)

Alfred McAlpine Construction Limited

Second Defendant (cambba Jv)

Balfour Beatty Group Limited

Third Defendant (cambba Jv)

AMEC Capital Projects Limited

Fourth Defendant (cambba Jv)

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (technology and Construction Court) / Judgment on Challenge to Adjudicator's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a dispute existed as to CAMBBA's entitlement to indirect costs for DC11 at the time of the Dennys adjudication
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the indirect costs claim
  3. 3 Whether withdrawal of a claim precludes future adjudication or litigation of that claim

Ratio Decidendi

At the time of the Dennys adjudication, there was no subsisting dispute between MEL and CAMBBA as to the indirect costs of DC11 because CAMBBA had withdrawn its claim and MEL did not advance any independent claim. The adjudicator was correct to decline jurisdiction over the indirect costs claim. Withdrawal of the claim did not preclude CAMBBA from advancing a future claim for indirect costs based on revised facts or legal arguments. The claimants are not entitled to declarations or orders barring future claims for indirect costs, as the issue has not been finally determined on its merits.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Declarations and orders sought by the claimants are refused.
  • No declaration that the adjudicator was wrong to decline jurisdiction over the indirect costs claim.