Try Construction Ltd v Eton Town House Group Ltd

Try Construction Ltd v Eton Town House Group Ltd

The parties agreed to the appointment and scope of Mr Lowsley's role as an independent expert to assist the adjudicator, including using his own expertise and analysis. The Defendant participated in the process without demur and did not reserve its position. The adjudicator's process was transparent, within the agreed scope, and did not breach the rules of natural justice. The adjudicator's decision is valid and enforceable.

Parties
Claimant: Try Construction Ltd; Defendant: Eton Town House Group Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Construction Contract Dispute (adjudication Enforcement) / Judgment After Trial of Factual and Legal Issues
Outcome
Claim allowed; adjudicator's decision enforced
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Natural Justice, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Contractual Extensions of Time, Loss and Expense Claims
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Natural Justice Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Contractual Extensions of Time Loss and Expense Claims

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

Parties

Try Construction Ltd

Claimant

Eton Town House Group Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Construction Contract Dispute (adjudication Enforcement) / Judgment After Trial of Factual and Legal Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by relying on an expert's analysis beyond the parties' submissions
  2. 2 Whether the adjudication process breached the rules of natural justice
  3. 3 Whether the parties agreed to the scope of the expert's role in the adjudication

Ratio Decidendi

The parties agreed to the appointment and scope of Mr Lowsley's role as an independent expert to assist the adjudicator, including using his own expertise and analysis. The Defendant participated in the process without demur and did not reserve its position. The adjudicator's process was transparent, within the agreed scope, and did not breach the rules of natural justice. The adjudicator's decision is valid and enforceable.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; adjudicator's decision enforced

Orders

  • Agreement as to the expert's role found proved
  • No unfairness in the adjudication proceedings