CHARLES HENSHAW AND SONS LTD v. STEWART AND SHIELDS LTD [2014] ScotSC 59 (05 March 2014)

CHARLES HENSHAW AND SONS LTD v. STEWART AND SHIELDS LTD [2014] ScotSC 59 (05 March 2014)

The adjudicator's decision involved mixed issues of fact and law regarding the contract's variation provisions. The adjudicator addressed the jurisdictional challenge with reasons, and his decision was not plainly wrong or ultra vires. The sheriff was entitled to enforce the adjudicator's decision, as the challenge related to substance and jurisdiction, not a clear excess of jurisdiction.

Citation
[2014] ScotSC 59
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Charles Henshaw and Sons Ltd; Defenders and Appellants: Stewart & Shields Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Summary Decree Enforcing Adjudicator's Decision
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutors adhered to.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Interpretation of Construction Contracts, Summary Decree, Variation Clauses
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Interpretation of Construction Contracts Summary Decree Variation Clauses

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

Parties

Charles Henshaw and Sons Ltd

Pursuers and Respondents

Stewart & Shields Ltd

Defenders and Appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Summary Decree Enforcing Adjudicator's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the dispute referred under the construction contract
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff erred in granting summary decree enforcing the adjudicator's decision

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator's decision involved mixed issues of fact and law regarding the contract's variation provisions. The adjudicator addressed the jurisdictional challenge with reasons, and his decision was not plainly wrong or ultra vires. The sheriff was entitled to enforce the adjudicator's decision, as the challenge related to substance and jurisdiction, not a clear excess of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutors adhered to.

Orders

  • Defenders and appellants found liable to pursuers and respondents in expenses of the appeal, as taxed.
  • Account of expenses to be given in and remitted to Auditor of Court to tax and report.