Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Contractors Ltd

Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Contractors Ltd

The claims advanced by Vascroft in the third adjudication (Appendix C) were substantially different from those advanced and rejected in the first adjudication, as they identified new causes of delay and a new critical path analysis. Therefore, the adjudicator was wrong to treat his first decision as conclusive and to refuse to consider the new material. The judge at first instance was correct to so hold, and the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Quietfield Limited; Respondent: Vascroft Contractors Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Refusal in Technology and Construction Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under Construction Contracts, Extension of Time, Liquidated Damages, Res Judicata in Adjudication
Construction Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Under Construction Contracts Extension of Time Liquidated Damages Res Judicata in Adjudication

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

Parties

Quietfield Limited

Appellant

Vascroft Contractors Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Refusal in Technology and Construction Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator in the third adjudication was correct to treat his own decision in the first adjudication as conclusive in relation to extension of time
  2. 2 Whether the claims advanced in the third adjudication were substantially the same as those in the first adjudication

Ratio Decidendi

The claims advanced by Vascroft in the third adjudication (Appendix C) were substantially different from those advanced and rejected in the first adjudication, as they identified new causes of delay and a new critical path analysis. Therefore, the adjudicator was wrong to treat his first decision as conclusive and to refuse to consider the new material. The judge at first instance was correct to so hold, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; first instance judgment affirmed