Ballast Plc v. The Burrell Company (Construction Management) Ltd [2002] ScotCS 324 (17 December 2002)

Ballast Plc v. The Burrell Company (Construction Management) Ltd [2002] ScotCS 324 (17 December 2002)

The adjudicator erred in law by declining to determine the dispute referred to him on the basis that some claims were not based on the written contract, thereby failing to exercise his jurisdiction. This error rendered his decision a nullity, justifying judicial review and reduction of the decision.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 324
Parties
Petitioners and Respondents: Ballast Plc; First Respondents and Reclaimers: The Burrell Company (Construction Management) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Decision
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor affirmed; adjudicator's decision reduced as a nullity.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under Construction Contracts, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Judicial Review of Adjudicator's Decision, Interpretation of Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
Construction Law Administrative Law Adjudication Under Construction Contracts Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Judicial Review of Adjudicator's Decision Interpretation of Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

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

Parties

Ballast Plc

Petitioners and Respondents

The Burrell Company (Construction Management) Limited

First Respondents and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator's decision was a nullity due to failure to exercise jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator could decline to determine claims not strictly based on written contractual terms under section 107 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator erred in law by declining to determine the dispute referred to him on the basis that some claims were not based on the written contract, thereby failing to exercise his jurisdiction. This error rendered his decision a nullity, justifying judicial review and reduction of the decision.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor affirmed; adjudicator's decision reduced as a nullity.

Orders

  • Sustain petitioners' pleas-in-law
  • Repel respondents' pleas-in-law