Ellis Building Contractors Ltd v Goldstein

Ellis Building Contractors Ltd v Goldstein

The adjudicator's decision was enforceable because the issue of the contract documents and the absence of a financial cap was properly before the adjudicator, and the defendant had the opportunity to address it. The improper deployment of 'without prejudice' material did not give rise to a legitimate fear of bias, as it was not relied upon in the decision and the defendant did not object in time.

Parties
Claimant: Ellis Building Contractors Limited; Defendant: Vincent Goldstein
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction/contract) / Summary Judgment Application to Enforce Adjudicator's Decision
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the claimant; costs awarded to the claimant on a standard basis.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Natural Justice, Without Prejudice Communications, Summary Judgment, Contract Formation
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Natural Justice Without Prejudice Communications Summary Judgment Contract Formation

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

Parties

Ellis Building Contractors Limited

Claimant

Vincent Goldstein

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction/contract) / Summary Judgment Application to Enforce Adjudicator's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator's decision should be enforced given alleged breaches of natural justice
  2. 2 Whether the deployment of 'without prejudice' material before the adjudicator gave rise to apparent bias
  3. 3 Whether the contract between the parties was subject to a financial cap as argued by the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator's decision was enforceable because the issue of the contract documents and the absence of a financial cap was properly before the adjudicator, and the defendant had the opportunity to address it. The improper deployment of 'without prejudice' material did not give rise to a legitimate fear of bias, as it was not relied upon in the decision and the defendant did not object in time.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the claimant; costs awarded to the claimant on a standard basis.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay the judgment sum by 28 February 2011.
  • Defendant to pay the claimant's costs summarily assessed at £10,000.