Wycombe Demolition Ltd v Topevent Ltd [2015] EWHC 2692 (TCC) (Hearing 31 July 2015)

Wycombe Demolition Ltd v Topevent Ltd [2015] EWHC 2692 (TCC) (Hearing 31 July 2015)

The adjudicator had jurisdiction as only one dispute was referred, or alternatively, Topevent acquiesced to the adjudicator's jurisdiction by participating without objection. There was no breach of natural justice in refusing a site visit or in the approach to valuation, as the adjudicator acted within his...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2692 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Wycombe Demolition Limited; Defendant: Topevent Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Adjudication Enforcement / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the claimant.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Natural Justice, Summary Judgment, Counterclaim
Construction Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Natural Justice Summary Judgment Counterclaim

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wycombe Demolition Limited

Claimant

Topevent Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Adjudication Enforcement / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide multiple disputes
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of natural justice by refusal of a site visit
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator decided the valuation issue on a basis not advanced by the parties

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator had jurisdiction as only one dispute was referred, or alternatively, Topevent acquiesced to the adjudicator's jurisdiction by participating without objection. There was no breach of natural justice in refusing a site visit or in the approach to valuation, as the adjudicator acted within his discretion and on the material provided. The counterclaim had already been considered and rejected by the adjudicator and could not prevent enforcement.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the claimant.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay £113,666.63 to claimant.
  • Defendant to pay interest as determined by the adjudicator.