Skanska Construction UK Ltd v. The ERDC Group Ltd & Anor [2002] ScotCS 307 (28 November 2002)

Skanska Construction UK Ltd v. The ERDC Group Ltd & Anor [2002] ScotCS 307 (28 November 2002)

The dispute in the second adjudication was not substantially the same as the first because it arose at a different contractual stage (final account vs interim payment), under different provisions, and with additional information available. The contract did not impose a strict time-bar on further information or claims, and Skanska had waived any such argument by their conduct. Therefore, Skanska failed to establish a prima facie case for interim interdict or suspension.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 307
Parties
Petitioner: Skanska Construction UK Ltd; First Respondent: The ERDC Group Ltd; Second Respondent: John Hunter
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Petition for Judicial Review (interim Interdict and Suspension) / First Hearing on Interim Orders
Outcome
Interim interdict and interim suspension refused; intimation and service of the petition ordered.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under Construction Contracts, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Interim Interdict, Time Bar in Contract Claims
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Under Construction Contracts Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Interim Interdict Time Bar in Contract Claims

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Skanska Construction UK Ltd

Petitioner

The ERDC Group Ltd

First Respondent

John Hunter

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Judicial Review (interim Interdict and Suspension) / First Hearing on Interim Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dispute in the second adjudication was the same or substantially the same as the first adjudication
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to proceed with the second adjudication
  3. 3 Whether contractual time-bars precluded further claims or information after a specified period

Ratio Decidendi

The dispute in the second adjudication was not substantially the same as the first because it arose at a different contractual stage (final account vs interim payment), under different provisions, and with additional information available. The contract did not impose a strict time-bar on further information or claims, and Skanska had waived any such argument by their conduct. Therefore, Skanska failed to establish a prima facie case for interim interdict or suspension.

Court Disposition

Interim interdict and interim suspension refused; intimation and service of the petition ordered.

Orders

  • Refusal of interim interdict
  • Refusal of interim suspension