(FIRST) HOCHTIEF SOLUTIONS AG AND OTHERS AGSINST MASPERO ELEVATORI S.p.A [2020] ScotCS CSOH_102 (17 December 2020)

(FIRST) HOCHTIEF SOLUTIONS AG AND OTHERS AGSINST MASPERO ELEVATORI S.p.A [2020] ScotCS CSOH_102 (17 December 2020)

The defender did not make an appropriate and clear reservation of its jurisdictional objection during the adjudication and continued to participate, thereby waiving any such objection and conferring jurisdiction on the adjudicator. The adjudicator addressed the substantive defence regarding clause 12.3.1(c) and did not fail to exhaust his jurisdiction. The defender's averments are irrelevant and decree de plano is granted for the pursuers.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_102
Parties
Pursuer: Hochtief Solutions AG; Pursuer: Dragados S.A.; Pursuer: American Bridge International Corporation; Pursuer: Galliford Try Infrastructure Limited; Defender: Maspero Elevatori S.p.A.
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Enforcement Action (adjudication Award) / Outer House, Court of Session, Opinion (final Judgment)
Outcome
Decree de plano granted for the pursuers; defender's pleas repelled.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Jurisdictional Challenge, Waiver of Jurisdictional Objections, Variation of Contract, Summary Decree, Exhaustion of Jurisdiction
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Jurisdictional Challenge Waiver of Jurisdictional Objections Variation of Contract Summary Decree +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hochtief Solutions AG

Pursuer

Dragados S.A.

Pursuer

American Bridge International Corporation

Pursuer

Galliford Try Infrastructure Limited

Pursuer

Maspero Elevatori S.p.A.

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Enforcement Action (adjudication Award) / Outer House, Court of Session, Opinion (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding on a dispute allegedly arising under a 'new agreement' rather than the sub-contract
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator failed to exhaust his jurisdiction by not addressing a substantive line of defence regarding the applicability of clause 12.3.1(c) of the sub-contract

Ratio Decidendi

The defender did not make an appropriate and clear reservation of its jurisdictional objection during the adjudication and continued to participate, thereby waiving any such objection and conferring jurisdiction on the adjudicator. The adjudicator addressed the substantive defence regarding clause 12.3.1(c) and did not fail to exhaust his jurisdiction. The defender's averments are irrelevant and decree de plano is granted for the pursuers.

Court Disposition

Decree de plano granted for the pursuers; defender's pleas repelled.

Orders

  • Sustain the pleas-in-law of the pursuers.
  • Repel the defender’s pleas-in-law.