McAlpine PPS Pipeline Systems Joint Venture v Transco Plc

McAlpine PPS Pipeline Systems Joint Venture v Transco Plc

The adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding on issues and evidence not referred to him without Transco's agreement, and the late introduction of substantial new evidence deprived Transco of a fair opportunity to respond, resulting in significant procedural unfairness. Therefore, Transco has a real prospect of successfully defending the enforcement claim, and summary enforcement is refused.

Parties
Claimant: McAlpine PPS Pipeline Systems Joint Venture; Defendant: Transco PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Application Under Part 24 CPR (summary Judgment) / Ruling on Application to Enforce Adjudicator's Decision
Outcome
Application for summary enforcement refused
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Natural Justice in Adjudication, Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Scheme for Construction Contracts
Construction Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Natural Justice in Adjudication Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 Scheme for Construction Contracts

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

Parties

McAlpine PPS Pipeline Systems Joint Venture

Claimant

Transco PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Part 24 CPR (summary Judgment) / Ruling on Application to Enforce Adjudicator's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator acted within jurisdiction in deciding the dispute referred
  2. 2 Whether the adjudication procedure was fair and compliant with natural justice
  3. 3 Whether new issues and evidence introduced during adjudication invalidated the decision

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding on issues and evidence not referred to him without Transco's agreement, and the late introduction of substantial new evidence deprived Transco of a fair opportunity to respond, resulting in significant procedural unfairness. Therefore, Transco has a real prospect of successfully defending the enforcement claim, and summary enforcement is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for summary enforcement refused

Orders

  • Enforcement of the adjudicator's decision is declined
  • Matter may proceed to a full hearing on the merits if parties wish