Vision Homes Ltd v Lancsville Construction Ltd

Vision Homes Ltd v Lancsville Construction Ltd

The adjudicator (Mr Bingham) lacked jurisdiction because the request to the nominating body for his appointment preceded the relevant notice of adjudication, contrary to the mandatory sequence required by the Scheme for Construction Contracts. Non-compliance with these procedural requirements is fatal to jurisdiction, regardless of prejudice. The adjudicator’s decision is therefore a nullity.

Parties
Claimant: Vision Homes Ltd; Defendant: Lancsville Construction Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Dispute) / Judgment on Part 8 Claim (jurisdiction of Adjudicator)
Outcome
Adjudicator’s decision declared null and void for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Procedure, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Variation of Contract, Liquidated Damages, Partial Possession, Extension of Time, Natural Justice
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Procedure Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Variation of Contract Liquidated Damages Partial Possession Extension of Time +1 more

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vision Homes Ltd

Claimant

Lancsville Construction Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Dispute) / Judgment on Part 8 Claim (jurisdiction of Adjudicator)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator (Mr Bingham) had jurisdiction to make the decision under the Scheme for Construction Contracts given the timing and sequence of notices and requests for nomination.
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator's decision was void for uncertainty or for exceeding the scope of the dispute referred.
  3. 3 Whether the parties had abandoned or fundamentally varied the contract such that key contractual mechanisms (e.g., LADs, EOT) no longer applied.

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator (Mr Bingham) lacked jurisdiction because the request to the nominating body for his appointment preceded the relevant notice of adjudication, contrary to the mandatory sequence required by the Scheme for Construction Contracts. Non-compliance with these procedural requirements is fatal to jurisdiction, regardless of prejudice. The adjudicator’s decision is therefore a nullity.

Court Disposition

Adjudicator’s decision declared null and void for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Mr Bingham’s adjudication decision is set aside and has no effect.
  • No order for payment of Mr Bingham’s fees; liability for fees follows outcome on jurisdiction.