Ravestein BV v Trant Engineering Ltd [2023] EWHC 11 (TCC) (09 January 2023)

Ravestein BV v Trant Engineering Ltd [2023] EWHC 11 (TCC) (09 January 2023)

The court held that the arbitrator was not obviously wrong in finding that the Claimant's email did not satisfy the requirements for a valid Notice of Dissatisfaction under NEC3 clauses W2.3(11) and W2.4(2), as it only challenged the adjudicator's jurisdiction and did not indicate an intention to refer the substantive dispute to arbitration. The court further held that the issue was not of general public importance, nor was the arbitrator's decision open to serious doubt, and it was not just and proper for the court to determine the question given the circumstances.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 11 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Ravestein B. V.; Defendant: Trant Engineering Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal Arbitration Award / Judgment on Application for Permission to Appeal Under Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; other orders sought by the Claimant refused.
Legal Topics
Notice of Dissatisfaction, Interpretation of Standard Form Contracts, Arbitration Act 1996 Section 69, Adjudication Under NEC3, Finality of Adjudicator's Decision
Arbitration Construction Law Notice of Dissatisfaction Interpretation of Standard Form Contracts Arbitration Act 1996 Section 69 Adjudication Under NEC3 Finality 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ravestein B. V.

Claimant

Trant Engineering Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal Arbitration Award / Judgment on Application for Permission to Appeal Under Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant served a valid Notice of Dissatisfaction under NEC3 clauses W2.3(11) and W2.4(2)
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's decision was obviously wrong in law
  3. 3 Whether the question is of general public importance or open to serious doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitrator was not obviously wrong in finding that the Claimant's email did not satisfy the requirements for a valid Notice of Dissatisfaction under NEC3 clauses W2.3(11) and W2.4(2), as it only challenged the adjudicator's jurisdiction and did not indicate an intention to refer the substantive dispute to arbitration. The court further held that the issue was not of general public importance, nor was the arbitrator's decision open to serious doubt, and it was not just and proper for the court to determine the question given the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; other orders sought by the Claimant refused.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay Defendant's costs summarily assessed at £20,222.37