Secretary of State for Defence v Turner Estate Solutions Ltd

Secretary of State for Defence v Turner Estate Solutions Ltd

The tribunal's finding that any agreement between the parties regarding determination of CPs did not bind the tribunal in changed circumstances, and that the tribunal retained discretion over whether to determine CPs, was a finding of fact and law within its jurisdiction. There was no serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a), (c), or (d) of the Arbitration Act 1996, and no substantial injustice was caused. The application to set aside or remit the Second Part Award fails.

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 (s.68 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996, Procedural Agreements in Arbitration, Tribunal Discretion, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Interim Payments in Construction Contracts
Arbitration Civil Procedure Construction Law Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Procedural Agreements in Arbitration Tribunal Discretion Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Interim Payments 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 (s.68 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal committed a serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a), (c), or (d) of the Arbitration Act 1996 by not determining liability and/or quantum of Change Proposals (CPs) as allegedly agreed by the parties
  2. 2 Whether there was a binding procedural agreement requiring the tribunal 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

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal's finding that any agreement between the parties regarding determination of CPs did not bind the tribunal in changed circumstances, and that the tribunal retained discretion over whether to determine CPs, was a finding of fact and law within its jurisdiction. There was no serious irregularity under s.68(2)(a), (c), or (d) of the Arbitration Act 1996, and no substantial injustice was caused. The application to set aside or remit the Second Part Award fails.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed