TRANSFORM SCHOOLS (NORTH LANARKSHIRE) LTD AGAINST (FIRST) BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LTD, AND (SECOND) BALFOUR BEATTY KILPATRICK LTD [2020] ScotCS CSOH_19 (18 February 2020)

TRANSFORM SCHOOLS (NORTH LANARKSHIRE) LTD AGAINST (FIRST) BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION LTD, AND (SECOND) BALFOUR BEATTY KILPATRICK LTD [2020] ScotCS CSOH_19 (18 February 2020)

The adjudicator was entitled to consider the admissibility of 'without prejudice' correspondence, having given both parties opportunity to make submissions. Any error in admitting the material was an error of law, not a material breach of natural justice or apparent bias. Therefore, the adjudicator’s decision should be enforced.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_19
Parties
Pursuer: Transform Schools (North Lanarkshire) Limited; Defender: Balfour Beatty Construction Limited; Defender: Balfour Beatty Kilpatrick Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action for Enforcement of Adjudicator’s Decision / Motion for Enforcement of Adjudicator’s Decision
Outcome
adjudicator’s decision enforced
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Adjudicator’s Decision, Natural Justice, Without Prejudice Privilege, Prescription, Apparent Bias
Construction Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Adjudicator’s Decision Natural Justice Without Prejudice Privilege Prescription Apparent Bias

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transform Schools (North Lanarkshire) Limited

Pursuer

Balfour Beatty Construction Limited

Defender

Balfour Beatty Kilpatrick Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action for Enforcement of Adjudicator’s Decision / Motion for Enforcement of Adjudicator’s Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the adjudicator’s decision be enforced given alleged reliance on 'without prejudice' correspondence?
  2. 2 Did the adjudicator breach natural justice or create apparent bias by admitting 'without prejudice' material?
  3. 3 Was the prescriptive period extended under section 6(4) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973?

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator was entitled to consider the admissibility of 'without prejudice' correspondence, having given both parties opportunity to make submissions. Any error in admitting the material was an error of law, not a material breach of natural justice or apparent bias. Therefore, the adjudicator’s decision should be enforced.

Court Disposition

adjudicator’s decision enforced

Orders

  • Decree granted in terms of the first and second conclusions.
  • Defenders’ fourth and fifth pleas in law repelled.