Kershaw Mechanical Services Ltd v Kendrick Construction Ltd [2006] EWHC 727 (TCC) (02 March 2006)

Kershaw Mechanical Services Ltd v Kendrick Construction Ltd [2006] EWHC 727 (TCC) (02 March 2006)

Only question one, concerning the true construction of the Qualification clause, is a question of law arising out of the award. The arbitrator's interpretation, restricting adjustments to certain situations where final design information differs from WYG's information, is not plainly wrong and is supported by the contractual context and evidence. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 727 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Kershaw Mechanical Services Limited; Defendant: Kendrick Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.69(2)(a) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contractual Qualifications, Variation Clauses, Arbitration Appeals, Party Autonomy
Construction Law Arbitration Law Interpretation of Contractual Qualifications Variation Clauses Arbitration Appeals Party Autonomy

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

Parties

Kershaw Mechanical Services Limited

Claimant

Kendrick Construction Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.69(2)(a) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Qualification clause permits adjustment whenever final design information differs from information supplied by White, Young and Green
  2. 2 Correct approach to appeals under section 69(2)(a) Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Degree of deference to arbitrator's decisions on questions of law

Ratio Decidendi

Only question one, concerning the true construction of the Qualification clause, is a question of law arising out of the award. The arbitrator's interpretation, restricting adjustments to certain situations where final design information differs from WYG's information, is not plainly wrong and is supported by the contractual context and evidence. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No adjustment to the sub-contract sum beyond the arbitrator's award
  • Award confirmed