Lead Technical Services Ltd v CMS Medical Ltd

Lead Technical Services Ltd v CMS Medical Ltd

There was a real prospect of establishing that the Deed of Appointment was the operative contract and that the adjudicator was appointed by the wrong body, depriving him of jurisdiction. There was also credible evidence supporting CMS's contention of an oral agreement to cap fees at £20,000, which, if proven, would mean there was no contract in writing as required by section 107. The judge failed to adequately address these factual disputes, making summary judgment inappropriate.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Lead Technical Services Ltd; Defendant/appellant: CMS Medical Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Enforcing Adjudication
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Written Contracts Under Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Summary Judgment, Oral Variation of Contract
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Written Contracts Under Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 Summary Judgment Oral Variation of Contract

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lead Technical Services Ltd

Claimant/respondent

CMS Medical Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Enforcing Adjudication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deed of Appointment constituted the operative contract between the parties and thus deprived the adjudicator of jurisdiction.
  2. 2 Whether there was an oral agreement to cap LTS's fees at £20,000, taking the contract outside the statutory definition of a written contract under section 107 of the 1996 Act.
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment enforcing the adjudicator's decision was appropriate given the factual disputes.

Ratio Decidendi

There was a real prospect of establishing that the Deed of Appointment was the operative contract and that the adjudicator was appointed by the wrong body, depriving him of jurisdiction. There was also credible evidence supporting CMS's contention of an oral agreement to cap fees at £20,000, which, if proven, would mean there was no contract in writing as required by section 107. The judge failed to adequately address these factual disputes, making summary judgment inappropriate.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • summary judgment set aside
  • matter remitted for further consideration