Aecom Design Build Ltd v Staptina Engineering Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 723 (TCC) (05 April 2017)

Aecom Design Build Ltd v Staptina Engineering Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 723 (TCC) (05 April 2017)

The adjudicator did not exceed her jurisdiction because the dispute referred included both whether deductions for defects were permitted and, if so, how such deductions should be calculated. The parties' submissions and evidence encompassed the method of calculation. There was no breach of natural justice as the relevant issues were fully canvassed and the adjudicator was entitled to reach her own conclusion on the contractual interpretation. The declarations sought by AECOM are refused and the Part 8 claim is dismissed.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 723 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: AECOM Design Build Limited; Defendant: Staptina Engineering Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Judgment After Hearing on Application for Declarations Regarding Adjudicator's Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Natural Justice in Adjudication, Interpretation of Construction Contracts, Severance of Adjudicator's Decision
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Natural Justice in Adjudication Interpretation of Construction Contracts Severance of Adjudicator's Decision

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

Parties

AECOM Design Build Limited

Claimant

Staptina Engineering Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Judgment After Hearing on Application for Declarations Regarding Adjudicator's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator exceeded her jurisdiction by deciding how deductions for defects should be calculated
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of natural justice in the adjudication process
  3. 3 Whether the impugned parts of the adjudicator's decision should be severed

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator did not exceed her jurisdiction because the dispute referred included both whether deductions for defects were permitted and, if so, how such deductions should be calculated. The parties' submissions and evidence encompassed the method of calculation. There was no breach of natural justice as the relevant issues were fully canvassed and the adjudicator was entitled to reach her own conclusion on the contractual interpretation. The declarations sought by AECOM are refused and the Part 8 claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Declarations sought by AECOM refused
  • Part 8 claim dismissed