Ecovision Systems Ltd v Vinci Construction UK Ltd (Rev 1)

Ecovision Systems Ltd v Vinci Construction UK Ltd (Rev 1)

The adjudicator was not validly appointed because the correct adjudication procedure under the Sub-Contract was the TeCSA Rules (as incorporated via the Main Contract Z clauses), not Option W2 or the Scheme; the RICS was not the correct nominating body. The adjudicator's decision was made under the wrong rules and without jurisdiction. The notice of adjudication and nomination were not invalid merely for failing to specify the rules, but the substantive appointment was defective. There was no apparent bias.

Parties
Claimant: Ecovision Systems Limited; Defendant: Vinci Construction UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Dispute) / Judgment on Part 8 Claim (declaratory Relief Re: Adjudicator's Jurisdiction)
Outcome
Declaration granted in favour of Ecovision; adjudicator's decision declared of no effect for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under Construction Contracts, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Interpretation of Contract Terms, Appointment of Adjudicator, Natural Justice and Bias in Adjudication
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Under Construction Contracts Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Interpretation of Contract Terms Appointment of Adjudicator Natural Justice and Bias in Adjudication

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ecovision Systems Limited

Claimant

Vinci Construction UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Dispute) / Judgment on Part 8 Claim (declaratory Relief Re: Adjudicator's Jurisdiction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator was validly appointed under the correct adjudication rules/procedure
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator's decision was made out of time and is a nullity
  3. 3 Whether the notice of adjudication and nomination were invalid for failure to identify the applicable rules

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator was not validly appointed because the correct adjudication procedure under the Sub-Contract was the TeCSA Rules (as incorporated via the Main Contract Z clauses), not Option W2 or the Scheme; the RICS was not the correct nominating body. The adjudicator's decision was made under the wrong rules and without jurisdiction. The notice of adjudication and nomination were not invalid merely for failing to specify the rules, but the substantive appointment was defective. There was no apparent bias.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted in favour of Ecovision; adjudicator's decision declared of no effect for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Declaration that the adjudicator's decision is of no effect and not binding on Ecovision.
  • If Vinci wishes to pursue adjudication, it must commence a new adjudication under the TeCSA Rules with the correct nominating body.