GT EQUITIX INVERNESS LTD AGAINST BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF INVERNESS COLLEGE [2019] ScotCS CSOH_46 (18 June 2019)

GT EQUITIX INVERNESS LTD AGAINST BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF INVERNESS COLLEGE [2019] ScotCS CSOH_46 (18 June 2019)

The pursuer's actions did not constitute interference or manipulation of the adjudication process; the contractual procedure for replacement was properly followed; the defender failed to plead or establish facts showing breach of 'as soon as practicable'; the adjudicator considered the set-off defence and did not fail to exhaust jurisdiction; therefore, the adjudicator's award should be enforced.

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSOH_46
Parties
Pursuer: GT Equitix Inverness Limited; Defender: Board of Management of Inverness College
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Enforcement of Adjudicator's Award / Outer House, Court of Session, Opinion Following Debate
Outcome
Defender's grounds of challenge dismissed; adjudicator's award enforced.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdictional Challenge, Contractual Interpretation, Natural Justice, Set Off
Construction Law Contract Law Alternative Dispute Resolution Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdictional Challenge Contractual Interpretation Natural Justice Set Off

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GT Equitix Inverness Limited

Pursuer

Board of Management of Inverness College

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Enforcement of Adjudicator's Award / Outer House, Court of Session, Opinion Following Debate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's actions constituted interference with the adjudication appointment process
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of the adjudicator was premature under the contract
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator failed to exhaust jurisdiction by not considering set-off arguments

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's actions did not constitute interference or manipulation of the adjudication process; the contractual procedure for replacement was properly followed; the defender failed to plead or establish facts showing breach of 'as soon as practicable'; the adjudicator considered the set-off defence and did not fail to exhaust jurisdiction; therefore, the adjudicator's award should be enforced.

Court Disposition

Defender's grounds of challenge dismissed; adjudicator's award enforced.

Orders

  • Case put out By Order to confirm terms of decree and address expenses.
  • Effect to be given to the Decision; parties to address impact on counterclaim orders.