HOCHTIEF SOLUTIONS AG AND OTHERS (THE FORTH CROSSING BRIDGE CONSTRUCTORS) AGAINST MASPERO ELEVATORI S.p.A [2021] ScotCS CSIH_19 (15 February 2021)

HOCHTIEF SOLUTIONS AG AND OTHERS (THE FORTH CROSSING BRIDGE CONSTRUCTORS) AGAINST MASPERO ELEVATORI S.p.A [2021] ScotCS CSIH_19 (15 February 2021)

The Como agreement constituted a variation of the subcontract and fell within the scope of the adjudication; Maspero did not make a valid or timely jurisdictional challenge; the adjudicator had jurisdiction and the decision is binding.

Citation
[2021] ScotCS CSIH_19
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: HOCHTIEF SOLUTIONS AG AND OTHERS (THE FORTH CROSSING BRIDGE CONSTRUCTORS); Defender and Reclaimer: MASPERO ELEVATORI S.p. A
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (reclaiming Motion) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Decree De Plano Enforcing Adjudicator's Decision
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of commercial judge adhered to
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Variation of Contract, Jurisdictional Challenge, Collateral Contract, Termination of Subcontract
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Enforcement Variation of Contract Jurisdictional Challenge Collateral Contract Termination of Subcontract

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HOCHTIEF SOLUTIONS AG AND OTHERS (THE FORTH CROSSING BRIDGE CONSTRUCTORS)

Pursuers and Respondents

MASPERO ELEVATORI S.p. A

Defender and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (reclaiming Motion) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Decree De Plano Enforcing Adjudicator's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Como agreement constituted a variation of the subcontract or a collateral bargain
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine disputes arising from the Como agreement
  3. 3 Whether a valid jurisdictional challenge was made by Maspero

Ratio Decidendi

The Como agreement constituted a variation of the subcontract and fell within the scope of the adjudication; Maspero did not make a valid or timely jurisdictional challenge; the adjudicator had jurisdiction and the decision is binding.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of commercial judge adhered to

Orders

  • decree de plano granted enforcing adjudicator's decision
  • Maspero obliged to pay sums sought by consortium