Lanes Group Plc v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd (t/a Galliford Try Rail)

Lanes Group Plc v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd (t/a Galliford Try Rail)

Galliford's conduct in allowing the first adjudication to lapse did not preclude it from commencing a second adjudication on the same dispute; the adjudicator had jurisdiction. The issuance of a Preliminary View by the adjudicator, expressed in strong terms but explicitly stated as provisional, did not amount to apparent bias. The adjudicator's decision was enforceable.

Parties
Appellant in First Two Appeals, Respondent in Third Appeal: Lanes Group Plc; Respondent in First Two Appeals and Appellant in Third Appeal: Galliford Try Infrastructure Limited t/a Galliford Try Rail
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal by Galliford allowed in part; appeal by Lanes dismissed; summary judgment for Galliford for sums due under the adjudicator's decision with interest.
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Jurisdiction, Apparent Bias, Natural Justice
Construction Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Jurisdiction Apparent Bias Natural Justice

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lanes Group Plc

Appellant in First Two Appeals, Respondent in Third Appeal

Galliford Try Infrastructure Limited t/a Galliford Try Rail

Respondent in First Two Appeals and Appellant in Third Appeal

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to conduct the adjudication after the first adjudication lapsed
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator's decision was tainted by apparent bias

Ratio Decidendi

Galliford's conduct in allowing the first adjudication to lapse did not preclude it from commencing a second adjudication on the same dispute; the adjudicator had jurisdiction. The issuance of a Preliminary View by the adjudicator, expressed in strong terms but explicitly stated as provisional, did not amount to apparent bias. The adjudicator's decision was enforceable.

Court Disposition

Appeal by Galliford allowed in part; appeal by Lanes dismissed; summary judgment for Galliford for sums due under the adjudicator's decision with interest.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for Galliford for the sums due on Mr Atkinson’s adjudication decision together with appropriate interest.
  • Counsel to agree figures and submit an agreed form of order.