Ravestein BV v Trant Engineering Limited

Ravestein BV v Trant Engineering Limited

The email relied upon by the Claimant did not constitute a valid Notice of Dissatisfaction under the contract because it only challenged the adjudicator's jurisdiction and did not clearly identify a dispute on the merits or an intention to refer the matter to arbitration, as required by clauses W2.3(11) and W2.4(2). The arbitrator's decision was not obviously wrong nor open to serious doubt, and the issue was not of general public importance.

Parties
Claimant: Ravestein B.V.; Defendant: Trant Engineering Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Arbitration Award
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Notice of Dissatisfaction, Interpretation of Standard Form Contracts, Jurisdiction of Arbitrator, Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Notice of Dissatisfaction Interpretation of Standard Form Contracts Jurisdiction of Arbitrator Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996

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

Arbitration Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the email sent by the Claimant constituted a valid Notice of Dissatisfaction under clauses W2.3(11) and W2.4(2) of the NEC3 Engineering and Construction Subcontract
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's decision on the validity of the Notice of Dissatisfaction was obviously wrong or open to serious doubt under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the question raised was of general public importance

Ratio Decidendi

The email relied upon by the Claimant did not constitute a valid Notice of Dissatisfaction under the contract because it only challenged the adjudicator's jurisdiction and did not clearly identify a dispute on the merits or an intention to refer the matter to arbitration, as required by clauses W2.3(11) and W2.4(2). The arbitrator's decision was not obviously wrong nor open to serious doubt, and the issue was not of general public importance.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Other orders sought by the Claimant refused