Skymist Holdings Ltd v Grandlane Developments Ltd
The adjudicator had jurisdiction because Grandlane did not rely on a contract containing the disputed nominating body clause; the appointment by RICS was correct under the Scheme. There was no clear and unequivocal approbation of the DOA by Grandlane, nor any benefit gained, so the doctrine of approbation and reprobation did not apply.
- Parties
- Claimant: Skymist Holdings Limited; Defendant: Grandlane Developments Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 19 December 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Part 8 Claim (challenge to Adjudicator's Jurisdiction) / Judgment After Hearing
- Outcome
- Claim dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Adjudication, Jurisdiction, Approbation and Reprobation, Contract Formation, Dispute Resolution
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Skymist Holdings Limited
Claimant
Grandlane Developments Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (challenge to Adjudicator's Jurisdiction) / Judgment After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction given the route of appointment and the contract terms
- 2 Whether Grandlane was precluded from seeking appointment by RICS due to approbation and reprobation
Ratio Decidendi
The adjudicator had jurisdiction because Grandlane did not rely on a contract containing the disputed nominating body clause; the appointment by RICS was correct under the Scheme. There was no clear and unequivocal approbation of the DOA by Grandlane, nor any benefit gained, so the doctrine of approbation and reprobation did not apply.
Court Disposition
Claim dismissed
Orders
- Skymist's claim is dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment