Anglian Water Services Ltd v Laing O'Rourke Utilities Ltd

Anglian Water Services Ltd v Laing O'Rourke Utilities Ltd

Clause 93.1 is not incompatible with the Scheme and survives as a valid provision; compliance with clause 13.2 is required for effective service unless an address is notified for relevant communications; PM's Bristol office was validly notified for service of communications relevant to the adjudication, including the notice of intention to refer to arbitration; AWS is entitled to the declaration sought; alternatively, PM's conduct was a material cause of AWS's failure to serve at St Neots, justifying extension of time under section 12 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Parties
Claimant: Anglian Water Services Ltd; Defendant: Laing O’Rourke Utilities Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Declaration granted; extension of time granted (if required)
Legal Topics
Service of Notices, Time Limits, Contract Interpretation, Extension of Time, Adjudication Provisions
Construction Law Arbitration Service of Notices Time Limits Contract Interpretation Extension of Time Adjudication Provisions

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anglian Water Services Ltd

Claimant

Laing O’Rourke Utilities Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is clause 93.1 incompatible with Part II of HGCRA and of no effect?
  2. 2 Was delivery of the notice of dissatisfaction to PM within the four week period an effective communication under the contract?
  3. 3 Was the notice of intention to refer the dispute to arbitration a communication relevant to the adjudication?

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 93.1 is not incompatible with the Scheme and survives as a valid provision; compliance with clause 13.2 is required for effective service unless an address is notified for relevant communications; PM's Bristol office was validly notified for service of communications relevant to the adjudication, including the notice of intention to refer to arbitration; AWS is entitled to the declaration sought; alternatively, PM's conduct was a material cause of AWS's failure to serve at St Neots, justifying extension of time under section 12 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted; extension of time granted (if required)

Orders

  • AWS validly notified its intention to refer a dispute to arbitration within time; alternatively, time extended to 30 March 2010 for service of notice under section 12 Arbitration Act 1996