Homer Burgess Ltd v Chirex (Annan) Ltd [1999] ScotCS 264 (10 November 1999)

Homer Burgess Ltd v Chirex (Annan) Ltd [1999] ScotCS 264 (10 November 1999)

The adjudicator erred in law by misconstruing the meaning of 'plant' in section 105(2)(c)(ii) of the 1996 Act, wrongly treating the installation of pipework as a construction operation. As a result, the adjudicator's decision, to the extent it relates to such works, was made without jurisdiction and is not binding or enforceable. The court may review and decline to enforce an adjudicator's decision that exceeds statutory jurisdiction.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 264
Parties
Pursuer: Homer Burgess Limited; Defender: Chirex (Annan) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Contract Dispute / Outer House, Court of Session; Post Adjudication Enforcement Action
Outcome
Case put out By Order for further submissions on the extent of the adjudicator's jurisdiction and the appropriate form of order; no decree granted at this stage.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Interpretation of 'construction Operations', Enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision, Statutory Interpretation, Ultra Vires/intra Vires Decisions
Construction Law Contract Law Statutory Adjudication Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Interpretation of 'construction Operations' Enforcement of Adjudicator's Decision Statutory Interpretation Ultra Vires/intra Vires Decisions

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

Parties

Homer Burgess Limited

Pursuer

Chirex (Annan) Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Contract Dispute / Outer House, Court of Session; Post Adjudication Enforcement Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator's decision is binding if based on an error as to the scope of his jurisdiction under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the installation of pipework constitutes 'construction operations' or falls within the statutory exception for 'plant' under section 105(2)(c)(ii)

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator erred in law by misconstruing the meaning of 'plant' in section 105(2)(c)(ii) of the 1996 Act, wrongly treating the installation of pipework as a construction operation. As a result, the adjudicator's decision, to the extent it relates to such works, was made without jurisdiction and is not binding or enforceable. The court may review and decline to enforce an adjudicator's decision that exceeds statutory jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Case put out By Order for further submissions on the extent of the adjudicator's jurisdiction and the appropriate form of order; no decree granted at this stage.