Secretary of State for Defence v Turner Estate Solutions Ltd [2014] EWHC 244 (TCC) (10 February 2014)

Secretary of State for Defence v Turner Estate Solutions Ltd [2014] EWHC 244 (TCC) (10 February 2014)

The tribunal's findings on the existence and effect of the parties' procedural agreement regarding determination of CPs are binding and not subject to challenge in these proceedings. The tribunal did not commit a serious irregularity under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, as it acted within its discretion and complied with its duties. The application is dismissed.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 244 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: The Secretary of State for Defence; Defendant: Turner Estate Solutions Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 / High Court Review of Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996, Procedural Agreements in Arbitration, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Change Proposals (cps) in Construction Contracts
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Procedural Agreements in Arbitration Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Change Proposals (cps) in 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary of State for Defence

Claimant

Turner Estate Solutions Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 / High Court Review of Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal committed a serious irregularity under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by failing to determine liability and quantum of Change Proposals (CPs) as allegedly agreed by the parties
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal was bound by a procedural agreement to determine CPs irrespective of their relevance to interim payments
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal failed to comply with its general duty under s.33 of the Act by causing unnecessary delay or expense

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal's findings on the existence and effect of the parties' procedural agreement regarding determination of CPs are binding and not subject to challenge in these proceedings. The tribunal did not commit a serious irregularity under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, as it acted within its discretion and complied with its duties. The application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No remission or setting aside of the Second Part Award
  • Costs to be determined separately