9 Sept 2024
Not specified in the provided excerpt.
1 Nov 2023
The Court set aside the Adjudication Decision because the Adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction by deciding claims for loss and damages arising from termination which fall outside the statutory definition of 'payment' under s.4 CIPAA 2012; allegations of denial of natural justice and lack of impartiality were not substantiated as the Adjudicator had addressed the preliminary objections and given reasons.
25 May 2023
Plaintiff satisfied the procedural prerequisites for summary judgment under Order 14 and established a prima facie case supported by invoices, account statements, correspondence and an executed joint and several guarantee; defendants failed to produce particularized evidence or credible facts to show a bona fide triable issue (their challenges were general denials or implausible contentions), therefore summary judgment was appropriate for the amount claimed and costs were awarded.
23 Apr 2020
The Applicant failed to meet the threshold under section 15 CIPAA to set aside the adjudication decision because the Adjudicator had considered the pertinent contractual documents and Engineer's confirmations, the Payment Claim was validly made under the contract and the adjudicator did not act in breach of natural justice or exceed his jurisdiction; therefore the application to set aside was dismissed.
6 Mar 2020
The Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Adjudicator acted beyond jurisdiction or denied natural justice; the challenged sums fell within the matters before the Adjudicator or were unsupported as afterthoughts and the court will not supplant the Adjudicator’s factual assessments in a s15 CIPAA challenge.
1 Nov 2019
On the factual matrix of the Letter of Mandate, LoA and Consortium Agreement Sinohydro was an unpaid party within s4 CIPAA and had locus to issue the payment claim; the adjudicator did not act in excess of jurisdiction nor breach natural justice in taking into account the Performance Bond because the Performance Bond matter was raised in the pleadings (Payment Response and Adjudication Reply) and adjudication pleadings must be considered; consequently the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed and enforcement was allowed.