OD Developments v Oak Dry Lining Ltd [2020] EWHC 2854 (TCC) (02 April 2020)

OD Developments v Oak Dry Lining Ltd [2020] EWHC 2854 (TCC) (02 April 2020)

The JCT subcontract terms and conditions were not incorporated into the Letter of Intent. The adjudicator proceeded on the basis that they were, and thus had no jurisdiction to determine the dispute as he did. The adjudicator's decision is therefore unenforceable.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2854 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: OD Developments & Projects Ltd; Defendant: Oak Dry Lining Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim and Cross Application for Summary Judgment / Judgment on Enforceability of Adjudicator's Decision and Part 8 Claim
Outcome
Claim dismissed; adjudicator's decision not enforced.
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Jurisdiction, Contract Formation, Incorporation of Terms, Payment Notices, Letter of Intent
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Jurisdiction Contract Formation Incorporation of Terms Payment Notices Letter of Intent

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

Parties

OD Developments & Projects Ltd

Claimant

Oak Dry Lining Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim and Cross Application for Summary Judgment / Judgment on Enforceability of Adjudicator's Decision and Part 8 Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide the dispute
  2. 2 Whether JCT subcontract terms were incorporated into the contract via the Letter of Intent
  3. 3 Whether the final payment notice was conclusive and binding

Ratio Decidendi

The JCT subcontract terms and conditions were not incorporated into the Letter of Intent. The adjudicator proceeded on the basis that they were, and thus had no jurisdiction to determine the dispute as he did. The adjudicator's decision is therefore unenforceable.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; adjudicator's decision not enforced.

Orders

  • Part 8 claim by OD Developments dismissed
  • Adjudicator's decision in favour of Oak Dry Lining not enforced