British Waterways Board For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 182 (5 July 2001)

British Waterways Board For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 182 (5 July 2001)

The balance of convenience favours refusal of the motions for interim orders, as the respondents face substantial financial prejudice from delay and the parties have already had months to resolve the issue without success. Statute and contract both favour speedy resolution.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 182
Parties
Petitioner: British Waterways Board; Respondent: Joint Venture (Second and Third Respondents); Respondent: First Respondent
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interim Motion
Outcome
motions refused
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Definition of Dispute, Balance of Convenience
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Definition of Dispute Balance of Convenience

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

Parties

British Waterways Board

Petitioner

Joint Venture (Second and Third Respondents)

Respondent

First Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interim Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a dispute exists between the parties that can be referred to adjudication
  2. 2 Whether the contract's definition of 'dispute' is overridden by statute
  3. 3 Where the balance of convenience lies regarding interim orders

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of convenience favours refusal of the motions for interim orders, as the respondents face substantial financial prejudice from delay and the parties have already had months to resolve the issue without success. Statute and contract both favour speedy resolution.

Court Disposition

motions refused

Orders

  • order for service granted
  • respondents awarded expenses of today's proceedings