Hitachi Zosen Inova AG v John Sisk & Son Ltd

Hitachi Zosen Inova AG v John Sisk & Son Ltd

The adjudicator in the second adjudication did not decide the valuation of Event 1176 except for the purposes of Payment Application 6, due to insufficient substantiation. Therefore, the eighth adjudication, which considered new evidence and sought valuation of Event 1176, was not the same or substantially the same dispute. The adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide the valuation and order payment.

Parties
Claimant: Hitachi Zosen Inova AG; Defendant: John Sisk & Son Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Adjudicator's Jurisdiction / Ruling on Enforcement and Jurisdiction
Outcome
Hitachi's arguments fail; adjudicator's orders in the eighth adjudication are to be enforced.
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Jurisdiction, Variation Orders, Interim Payments, Issue Estoppel
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Jurisdiction Variation Orders Interim Payments Issue Estoppel

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

Hitachi Zosen Inova AG

Claimant

John Sisk & Son Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Adjudicator's Jurisdiction / Ruling on Enforcement and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator in the eighth adjudication had jurisdiction to decide the valuation of Event 1176
  2. 2 Whether the dispute referred in the eighth adjudication was the same or substantially the same as that decided in the second adjudication
  3. 3 Whether Hitachi was estopped from contesting Sisk's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator in the second adjudication did not decide the valuation of Event 1176 except for the purposes of Payment Application 6, due to insufficient substantiation. Therefore, the eighth adjudication, which considered new evidence and sought valuation of Event 1176, was not the same or substantially the same dispute. The adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide the valuation and order payment.

Court Disposition

Hitachi's arguments fail; adjudicator's orders in the eighth adjudication are to be enforced.

Orders

  • Adjudicator's decision enforced: Hitachi to pay Sisk £825,703.17 plus VAT for Event 1176.
  • Hitachi to pay Sisk £34,035.33 in interest plus daily rate of £192.29 until payment.