Watkin Jones & Son Ltd v Lidl UK GmbH [2001] EWHC 453 (TCC) (27 December 2001)

Watkin Jones & Son Ltd v Lidl UK GmbH [2001] EWHC 453 (TCC) (27 December 2001)

Where a construction contract provides that, absent a notice disputing the amount applied for, the sum applied for is payable, and an adjudicator has already determined entitlement to that sum, a subsequent adjudicator lacks jurisdiction to re-open or re-adjudicate the same issue. The employer cannot circumvent the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] EWHC 453 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Watkin Jones & Son Limited; Defendant: Lidl UK GmbH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (declaratory and Injunctive Relief) / Judgment After Hearing on Jurisdiction of Adjudicator
Outcome
Declaration granted in favour of claimant; costs awarded to claimant.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under Construction Contracts, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, JCT Standard Form Contracts, Interim Payments, Notice Requirements for Withholding Payment
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Under Construction Contracts Jurisdiction of Adjudicator JCT Standard Form Contracts Interim Payments Notice Requirements for Withholding Payment

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Watkin Jones & Son Limited

Claimant

Lidl UK GmbH

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (declaratory and Injunctive Relief) / Judgment After Hearing on Jurisdiction of Adjudicator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator appointed at Lidl's request had jurisdiction to determine the dispute regarding application number 11 after a prior adjudication decision
  2. 2 Whether Lidl could re-adjudicate the amount due under application number 11 in the absence of required contractual notices

Ratio Decidendi

Where a construction contract provides that, absent a notice disputing the amount applied for, the sum applied for is payable, and an adjudicator has already determined entitlement to that sum, a subsequent adjudicator lacks jurisdiction to re-open or re-adjudicate the same issue. The employer cannot circumvent the contract's notice requirements by seeking a further adjudication on the same application.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted in favour of claimant; costs awarded to claimant.

Orders

  • Declaration that the adjudicator appointed at Lidl's request does not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute regarding application number 11.
  • Defendant to pay claimant's costs, summarily assessed at £3,631.