William Verry (Glazing Systems) Ltd v Furlong Homes Ltd [2005] EWHC 138 (TCC) (13 January 2005)

William Verry (Glazing Systems) Ltd v Furlong Homes Ltd [2005] EWHC 138 (TCC) (13 January 2005)

Section D of Verry's response was not a new claim but a refinement of the existing claim, and even if it were new, the broad and unqualified reference to adjudication entitled the adjudicator to consider it. The adjudicator acted within jurisdiction and ensured procedural fairness. The decision is binding until finally determined by the court.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 138 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: William Verry (Glazing Systems) Ltd; Defendant: Furlong Homes Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Judgment on Application for Declaration Regarding Adjudicator's Decision
Outcome
Declaration granted; adjudicator's decision is valid and binding until final determination by the court.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Extension of Time Claims, Procedural Fairness in Adjudication
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Extension of Time Claims Procedural Fairness in Adjudication

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Verry (Glazing Systems) Ltd

Claimant

Furlong Homes Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Judgment on Application for Declaration Regarding Adjudicator's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section D of Verry's response constituted a new claim outside the adjudicator's jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator was entitled to consider Section D in the adjudication
  3. 3 Whether any procedural irregularity or unfairness occurred in the adjudication process

Ratio Decidendi

Section D of Verry's response was not a new claim but a refinement of the existing claim, and even if it were new, the broad and unqualified reference to adjudication entitled the adjudicator to consider it. The adjudicator acted within jurisdiction and ensured procedural fairness. The decision is binding until finally determined by the court.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted; adjudicator's decision is valid and binding until final determination by the court.

Orders

  • Declaration that the adjudicator's decision dated 26 October 2004 is valid and binding upon both parties until finally determined by the court.