Carillion Construction Ltd. v Stephen Andrew Smith

Carillion Construction Ltd. v Stephen Andrew Smith

The third adjudication claim was, in substance and essence, the same as the second adjudication claim, involving the same heads of loss, period of delay, and underlying causes of action, merely supported by more detailed evidence and analysis. The addition of new evidence, arguments, or quantification methods does not convert the dispute into a materially different one. Therefore, the adjudicator in the third adjudication had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

Parties
Claimant: Carillion Construction Limited; Defendant: Stephen Andrew Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Proceedings (originating Summons) / Judgment on Preliminary Issue (jurisdiction of Adjudicator)
Outcome
Declaration granted; adjudicator had no jurisdiction in the third adjudication.
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Jurisdiction, Res Judicata / Issue Estoppel, Serial Adjudications, Delay and Disruption Claims
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Jurisdiction Res Judicata / Issue Estoppel Serial Adjudications Delay and Disruption Claims

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carillion Construction Limited

Claimant

Stephen Andrew Smith

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Proceedings (originating Summons) / Judgment on Preliminary Issue (jurisdiction of Adjudicator)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third adjudication involved the same or substantially the same dispute as the second adjudication, thus depriving the adjudicator of jurisdiction under the contract and statutory scheme.

Ratio Decidendi

The third adjudication claim was, in substance and essence, the same as the second adjudication claim, involving the same heads of loss, period of delay, and underlying causes of action, merely supported by more detailed evidence and analysis. The addition of new evidence, arguments, or quantification methods does not convert the dispute into a materially different one. Therefore, the adjudicator in the third adjudication had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted; adjudicator had no jurisdiction in the third adjudication.

Orders

  • Declaration that the third adjudicator has no and had no jurisdiction to resolve the dispute referred to him.