Lane End Developments Construction Ltd v Kingstone Civil Engineering Ltd

Lane End Developments Construction Ltd v Kingstone Civil Engineering Ltd

The adjudicator was not validly appointed because Kingstone's request for nomination preceded service of the Notice of Adjudication, contrary to the mandatory sequence in the Scheme for Construction Contracts. This was not a procedural defect susceptible to waiver by election or estoppel, as Lane End was not presented with a relevant choice and did not have sufficient knowledge to make an election. Lane End effectively reserved its position on jurisdiction throughout the adjudication process.

Parties
Claimant in Part 8, Defendant in Part 7: Lane End Developments Construction Limited; Defendant in Part 8, Claimant in Part 7: Kingstone Civil Engineering Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Adjudication) / Judgment on Part 8 Claim and Summary Judgment Application on Part 7 Claim
Outcome
Judgment for Lane End on Part 8 claim; Kingstone's application for summary judgment on Part 7 claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under the Scheme for Construction Contracts, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Waiver by Election, Estoppel, Procedural Irregularity
Construction Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Under the Scheme for Construction Contracts Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Waiver by Election Estoppel Procedural Irregularity

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lane End Developments Construction Limited

Claimant in Part 8, Defendant in Part 7

Kingstone Civil Engineering Limited

Defendant in Part 8, Claimant in Part 7

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Adjudication) / Judgment on Part 8 Claim and Summary Judgment Application on Part 7 Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator was validly appointed under the Scheme for Construction Contracts
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the decision
  3. 3 Whether Lane End waived the jurisdictional defect by election or was estopped from relying on it

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator was not validly appointed because Kingstone's request for nomination preceded service of the Notice of Adjudication, contrary to the mandatory sequence in the Scheme for Construction Contracts. This was not a procedural defect susceptible to waiver by election or estoppel, as Lane End was not presented with a relevant choice and did not have sufficient knowledge to make an election. Lane End effectively reserved its position on jurisdiction throughout the adjudication process.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Lane End on Part 8 claim; Kingstone's application for summary judgment on Part 7 claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that the adjudicator's decision is not enforceable against Lane End
  • Dismissal of Kingstone's summary judgment application