Midland Expressway Ltd & Ors v Carillion Construction Ltd & Ors (No. 3)

Midland Expressway Ltd & Ors v Carillion Construction Ltd & Ors (No. 3)

The adjudicator was correct in concluding that there was no dispute capable of being adjudicated regarding CAMBBA's claim for indirect costs of DC11, as no quantified or articulated claim existed at the relevant time. CAMBBA were entitled to withdraw any such claim from adjudication. The present action was not time-barred, but the claimants' case fails on the merits.

Parties
Claimant: Midland Expressway Limited; Claimant: Secretary of State for Transport; Defendant: Carillion Construction Limited; Defendant: Alfred McAlpine Construction Limited; Defendant: Balfour Beatty Group Limited; Defendant: AMEC Capital Projects Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction/contract) / Judgment After Trial (part 8 Proceedings)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Dispute Resolution, Withdrawal of Claims, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Time Bar/limitation, Indirect Costs, Direct Costs, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Dispute Resolution Withdrawal of Claims Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Time Bar/limitation +4 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Midland Expressway Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Transport

Claimant

Carillion Construction Limited

Defendant

Alfred McAlpine Construction Limited

Defendant

Balfour Beatty Group Limited

Defendant

AMEC Capital Projects Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction/contract) / Judgment After Trial (part 8 Proceedings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the present action is time-barred under the contract's dispute resolution procedure
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator was correct to conclude there was no dispute capable of being adjudicated regarding CAMBBA's claim for indirect costs of DC11
  3. 3 Whether CAMBBA were entitled to withdraw any claim made for the indirect costs of DC11

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator was correct in concluding that there was no dispute capable of being adjudicated regarding CAMBBA's claim for indirect costs of DC11, as no quantified or articulated claim existed at the relevant time. CAMBBA were entitled to withdraw any such claim from adjudication. The present action was not time-barred, but the claimants' case fails on the merits.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed; claimants fail in their claim.