Carillion Construction Ltd. v Stephen Andrew Smith [2011] EWHC 2910 (TCC) (10 November 2011)

Carillion Construction Ltd. v Stephen Andrew Smith [2011] EWHC 2910 (TCC) (10 November 2011)

The third adjudication referred by Mr Smith is, in substance, the same or substantially the same dispute as that decided in the second adjudication, as both concern entitlement to loss and expense for delay and disruption under the same contract, arising from the same events, and the differences in quantum or additional documentation do not render it a new dispute. Therefore, the adjudicator lacks jurisdiction to determine the third adjudication.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2910 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Carillion Construction Limited; Defendant: Stephen Andrew Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Proceedings (declaratory Relief) / Interlocutory Judgment on Adjudicator's Jurisdiction
Outcome
Claimant succeeds; declaration granted that adjudicator lacks jurisdiction in the third adjudication.
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Res Judicata in Adjudication, Serial Adjudications, Loss and Expense Claims, Extension of Time, Variation Valuation
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Res Judicata in Adjudication Serial Adjudications Loss and Expense Claims +2 more

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

Parties

Carillion Construction Limited

Claimant

Stephen Andrew Smith

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Proceedings (declaratory Relief) / Interlocutory Judgment on Adjudicator's Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third adjudication concerns a dispute that is the same or substantially the same as that decided in the second adjudication, thus depriving the adjudicator of jurisdiction under the contract and statutory scheme.

Ratio Decidendi

The third adjudication referred by Mr Smith is, in substance, the same or substantially the same dispute as that decided in the second adjudication, as both concern entitlement to loss and expense for delay and disruption under the same contract, arising from the same events, and the differences in quantum or additional documentation do not render it a new dispute. Therefore, the adjudicator lacks jurisdiction to determine the third adjudication.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds; declaration granted that adjudicator lacks jurisdiction in the third adjudication.

Orders

  • Declaration that the adjudicator in the third adjudication has no jurisdiction as the dispute is the same or substantially the same as that decided in the second adjudication.
  • Costs reserved or to be determined.