Yorkshire Water Services Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Construction Northern Ltd [2002] EWHC 2140 (TCC) (18 October 2002)

Yorkshire Water Services Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Construction Northern Ltd [2002] EWHC 2140 (TCC) (18 October 2002)

Part 11 CPR is not the appropriate mechanism for Elga's application as it is limited to preliminary jurisdictional matters (territoriality, competency), not to the existence or maintainability of a cause of action. The sub-contract confers non-exclusive jurisdiction to English courts for disputes not otherwise resolved, and does not clearly incorporate mandatory alternative dispute resolution procedures that would oust the court's jurisdiction. Biwater's claims are properly before the court.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 2140 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant (1): Yorkshire Water Services Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant (1) and (2): Taylor Woodrow Construction Northern Limited; Part 20 Defendant (2)/part 20 Claimant (3): Biwater Treatment Limited; Part 20 Defendant (3): Elga Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Preliminary Application Regarding Jurisdiction and Dispute Resolution
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Dispute Resolution, Contract Interpretation, Indemnity, Alternative Dispute Resolution
Civil Procedure Construction Law Contract Law Jurisdiction Dispute Resolution Contract Interpretation Indemnity Alternative Dispute Resolution

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yorkshire Water Services Limited

Claimant/part 20 Defendant (1)

Taylor Woodrow Construction Northern Limited

Defendant/part 20 Claimant (1) and (2)

Biwater Treatment Limited

Part 20 Defendant (2)/part 20 Claimant (3)

Elga Limited

Part 20 Defendant (3)

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Preliminary Application Regarding Jurisdiction and Dispute Resolution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Part 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules is the appropriate mechanism for Elga's application disputing jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise jurisdiction over Biwater's claims against Elga
  3. 3 Whether contractual dispute resolution mechanisms (negotiation, adjudication, expert determination) preclude litigation

Ratio Decidendi

Part 11 CPR is not the appropriate mechanism for Elga's application as it is limited to preliminary jurisdictional matters (territoriality, competency), not to the existence or maintainability of a cause of action. The sub-contract confers non-exclusive jurisdiction to English courts for disputes not otherwise resolved, and does not clearly incorporate mandatory alternative dispute resolution procedures that would oust the court's jurisdiction. Biwater's claims are properly before the court.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Elga's application under Part 11 CPR is refused.
  • Court retains jurisdiction to try Biwater's claims against Elga.