Jacobs UK Ltd v Skanska Construction UK Ltd

Jacobs UK Ltd v Skanska Construction UK Ltd

A party to an adjudication is entitled to withdraw unilaterally a dispute referred to adjudication and commence a further adjudication in respect of the same or substantially the same dispute. The court has power to grant an injunction to restrain a further adjudication if it is unreasonable and oppressive, but on...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Jacobs UK Limited; Defendant: Skanska Construction UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Construction Dispute / Application for Injunction and Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Application for injunction refused; declaration of entitlement to wasted/additional costs granted
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Injunctions, Costs, Abuse of Process
Construction Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Injunctions Costs Abuse of Process

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobs UK Limited

Claimant

Skanska Construction UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Construction Dispute / Application for Injunction and Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a party to an adjudication can withdraw a dispute and refer the same or substantially the same dispute to a second adjudication
  2. 2 Whether the court has power to grant an injunction to restrain pursuit of a second adjudication in such circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant injunctive relief on the facts

Ratio Decidendi

A party to an adjudication is entitled to withdraw unilaterally a dispute referred to adjudication and commence a further adjudication in respect of the same or substantially the same dispute. The court has power to grant an injunction to restrain a further adjudication if it is unreasonable and oppressive, but on the facts of this case, the second adjudication was not so. Jacobs is entitled to its wasted and/or additional costs, if any, caused by Skanska’s failure to comply with the agreed procedure and timetable.

Court Disposition

Application for injunction refused; declaration of entitlement to wasted/additional costs granted

Orders

  • No injunction to restrain the second adjudication
  • Jacobs entitled to its wasted and/or additional costs, if any, caused by Skanska’s failure to comply with the agreement of 13 February 2017