UK: Construction, Property & Real Estate (Case Law Review – March 2006)

Last Updated: 10 March 2006

By Professor Anthony Lavers, Director of Research and Professional Development at Keating Chambers

ADJUDICATION

Power to award costs

John Roberts Architects Ltd v Parkcare Homes (No.2) Ltd [2005] BLR 484 TCC

No term could be implied giving an adjudicator power to award costs in the event of discontinuance of an adjudication. The ordinary principles as to implication of terms would apply and the facts did not meet the requirements: there was no commercial necessity to imply such a term into the RIBA CE/99 standard terms. Note that this decision is reversed by the CA – see this section.

Incorporation and unfairness
Bryen & Langley Ltd v Martin Boston [2005] BLR 508 CA

This is the appeal from the TCC decision noted in KC in Brief March 2005. The CA allowed the appeal, holding that the JCT standard form of contract had, on the facts, been incorporated into the parties’ contract and that the adjudication provisions in the contract would not be unenforceable as contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

See Quietfield v Vascroft Contractors under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on whether a second adjudication was decided by the first adjudication.

Construction Law Vol.17 Issue 1 January/February 2006 contains the following articles:

When it’s a domestic
by Paul Newman, Hugh James (on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 impact on adjudication in residential occupier contracts).

Another matter of interest
by Fraser McMillan, Pinsent Masons (on Carillion Construction v Devonport Royal Dockyard) (Stephen Furst QC and Louise Randall)

Proper responding parties to adjudication
Michael John Construction v Golledge [2006] All ER (D) 140 TCC

Where a construction contract was concluded between a contractor and an unincorporated club, it was signed by trustees of the club. The contractor referred payment problems to adjudication and obtained awards in its favour. The defendant trustees resisted enforcement on the ground that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to bind the trustees since, under the club’s constitution, the proper responding parties were each and every club member and that the second reference comprised two disputes. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments; the club’s constitution was irrelevant as between the contracting parties and it would be contrary to the purpose of adjudication if simple disputes were required to be separated into individual components.

Award of costs: appeal allowed
John Roberts Architects Ltd v Parkcare Homes (No 2) Ltd [2006] All ER (D) 131. CA.

The Court of Appeal reversed the TCC’s decision (see this section) on the power of an adjudicator to award costs in the event of the adjudication being discontinued. The TCC had held that there was no implied power to award costs. However, the CA held that it would be very odd if the power to award costs only arose where there was a substantive contested decision. That would mean that either party having behaved unmeritoriously in advancing claim or defence could then avoid the consequences of the expense generated by throwing in their hand at the eleventh hour. Therefore under clause 9.2 of CE/99, which had been used to replace clause 29 in the CIC Model Adjudication Procedure 3rd ed used, the adjudicator could award costs ‘as part of what he had to decide’.

See Carillion Construction v Devonport Royal Dockyard under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on the adjudicator’s power to award interest.

ARBITRATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

See Surefire Systems v Guardian ECL under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on whether alleged errors by the arbitrator involved a question of law for the purposes of a s.69 Arbitration Act challenge.

Arbitration International 2005 Vol.21 No.4 contains the following articles:

UNCITRAL’s Model Law on international and commercial arbitration: present situation and future
by Pieter Sanders, Erasmus University Rotterdam

The nature of arbitral authority: a comment on Lesotho Highlands
by William Park, Boston University

Why not include arbitration in the Brussels Jurisdiction Regulation?
by Hans Van Houtte, University of Leuven

Judicial supervision of NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration: public or private law?
by Gus Van Harten, London School of Economics

The arbitrator as settlement facilitator
by Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, Rechtsanwalt

The arbitrator and the law: does he/she know it? Apply it? How? And a few more questions
by Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, University of Geneva

Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Commercial Arbitration Workshop

Journal of International Arbitration Vol 23 No 1 January 2006 contains the following articles:

Limits to enforcement of ICSID awards
by Edward Baldwin, Mark Kanter and Michael Nolan, Milbank Tweed

Anti-suit injunctions an arbitration: a final nail in the coffin?
by Hakeen Serik, Vinson & Elkins

Confidentiality in international arbitration – an introspection of the public interest exception
by Joyiyot Misra, Luthra & Luthra Bombay and Roman Jordans

Distinct features of arbitration in China: an historical perspective
by Wang Wenying, CIETAC Arbitrator

Maleck v Long: truncated tribunals and waiver of Dutco rights
by Denis Bensaude, Paris and New York Bars

The Finnish Supreme Court and the liability of arbitrators
by Gustaf Möller, Supreme Court of Finland

Arbitration Law Monthly Vol.6 No.2 Feb 2006 contains the following articles:

Challenging the findings in an award
on Claire & Co v Thames Water Utilities (serious irregularity and jurisdiction).

Privacy by Alasdair Davidson and Louis Flannery, Howes Percival on Glidepath BV v John Thompson (protection of the private and confidential nature of the arbitral process).

Jurisdiction on Lafarge (Aggregates) Ltd v London Borough of Newham (Paul Darling QC) (determining the arbitrator’s substantive jurisdiction)

Challenges to arbitral awards
on Benaim v Davies Middleton & Davies (Stephen Furst QC) (the basis of judicial intervention).

Error of law
on Demco Investments & Commercial SA v SE Baken Forsakring Holding AB (adequacy of evidence and error of law).

Judge arbitrators on Henry Boot Construction v Alstom Combined Cycles (Stephen Furst QC) (permission to appeal on a point of law).

Privilege in Mediation
Hall v Pertemps Group [2005] Times Law Reports 23 Dec Ch. Div

Where an action for documents, remuneration and confidentiality was stayed for mediation with no settlement achieved, the court had to consider the extent to which Part 36 offers and other occurrences, such as threats, made in the mediation would be covered by without prejudice protection.

Possibility of Bias
ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England [2005] Litigation Letter Vol.25 No.2 Feb 2006

Third arbitrator was a barrister who had recently been instructed by solicitors in a similar arbitration. The solicitors made allegations against the same witness in both cases. The Commercial Court held that there was a real possibility of bias amounting to ‘serious irregularity’ under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996. The barrister should not have continued to act as a tribunal member.

Agreement for ADR unenforceable
Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd v Vigour Ltd [2005] BLR 416 Hong Kong SAR Court of Appeal

An agreement in a Hong Kong construction contract to meet in order to ‘resolve any differences’ and thereafter to submit to ‘third party mediation procedure’ was held to be unenforceable as too vague and unspecific. Cable & Wireless v IBM was therefore distinguished and the effect was that the whole dispute resolution agreement was unenforceable.

Arbitration: the Journal of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Vol 72 No 1 February 2006 contains the following articles:

Commercial litigation and arbitration risk assessment techniques
by Michael O’Reilly, Paradise Chambers, Sheffield

Appointment of arbitrators – a lost opportunity?
by Neil Kaplan QC

Do alternative fee arrangements have a place in international arbitration?
by Ian Meredith and Sarah Aspinall, Kirkpatrick and Lockhart Nicholson Graham, London

The right to be heard and the right to hear: cultural dimensions of international commercial arbitration
by Thomas Klőtzel, Thűmmel, Schutze & Partners, Stuttgart.

Journal of International Arbitration Vol 22 No 6 December 2005 contains the following articles:

State arbitrations: predictably unpredictable solutions?
by Marc Blessing, Bär & Karrer, Zurich.

Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Vietnam – shortcomings and suggested remedies
by Quang Chuc Tran, YKVN Lawyers

Court ordered interim relief: developments in English arbitration law
by Haydn Main, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, London

Provisions for resolution of investment disputes within ASEAN
by Rukia Baruti Dames, SJ Berwin, London

UNCITRAL’s current work in the field of international commercial arbitration
by Renaud Sorieul, UNCITRAL

Defining the scope of arbitrable disputes in Australia: towards a ‘liberal’ approach?
by James Morrison, Stockholm University.

Related disputes
City & General (Holborn) Ltd v AYH plc [2005] EWHC 2494 TCC

Already noted in KC In Brief November 2005, the issue arose from the refusal of Project Manager AYH to concur in the appointment to hear disputes between them and their client of an arbitrator who had already been appointed to hear disputes between the client and the main contractor. The court exercised its discretion under s.18 Arbitration Act 1996 to appoint the same arbitrator, given that a material number of the issues were the same or substantially connected with those in the dispute already referred to arbitration. The commercial purpose of the arbitration clause was clearly that such related disputes should be heard by the same arbitrator, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

ICC Bulletin Vol 16 No 2 Fall 2005 contains the following articles:

The ICC Court: a behind-the-scenes look
by Jennifer Firby, ICC

Enforcement of commercial arbitration awards in Russia
by Hiroshi Oda, University of London

Drafting awards in ICC arbitrations
by Humphrey LLoyd, Atkin Chambers, Marco Damon, Paris Bar, Jean-Pierre Ancel, French Court de Cassation, Lord Dervaird, University of Edinburgh, Christoph Liebscher, Wolf Thiess, Herman Verbist, Brussels Bar.

Poland’s new arbitration legislation
by Andrzej Kakoleck and Piotr Nowaczyk, ICC.

Distinctive features of the new Danish Arbitration Act
by PR Meurs-Gerken, Supreme Court of Denmark

The extension of arbitration agreements within groups of companies: the alter ego doctrine in arbitral and court decisions
by Dominique Vidal, University of Nice Sophia-Anipolis.

CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CONTRACT LAW

See Henry Boot Construction v Alstom Combined Cycles under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on certificates as a condition precedent to payment and accrual of the right to action.

Direct costs and directly incurred losses
Robertson Group (Construction) Ltd v Amey Miller (Edinburgh) Joint Venture [2005] BLR 491 Court of Session Outer House

The case concerned the interpretation of the words "all direct costs and directly incurred losses" as contained in a letter of intent, which purported to limit the extent of reimbursement claimable by the contractors against the Joint Venture on a school PFI project in Edinburgh. The Outer House held that failure to make a profit should be accounted a loss in calculating damages for breach of contract. Costs in the sense of expenditure and losses would be recoverable under the contractual formula. The costs or losses, to be ‘direct’ and ‘directly incurred’ would have to be such as arise naturally in the usual course of things from the relevant event: in this case, the instructions for works under the letter of intent.

Construction Law Vol.17 Issue 1 January/February 2006 contains the following articles:

Minor works notes increase transparency
by Michael Phipps, Thurston Consultants (on JCT Minor Works 2005)

Review of the 2005 JCT Framework Agreement
by David Mosey, Trowers & Hamlins

Harmonised Red Book could lead to discord
by John Sheils, Shadbolts (on FIDIC Red Book MDB Edition)

Bid riggers beware
by Alan Davis, Pinsent Masons (on the Office of Fair Trading campaign)

The JCT 2005 contract – risk and insurance clauses
by John Wright, JD Risk Associates

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t
by Greg Richards, Pinsent Masons (on McGlinn v Waltham Contractors (Lucy Garrett))

See Decoma UK v Haden Drysys under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on reliance on contractual cap on damages for breach.

See Shawton Engineering v DGP International under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on termination of a contract for failure to complete within a reasonable time.

Remuneration on novation
Quarmby Electrical Ltd v Trant [2006] All ER (D) 142

The claimant company was held to be entitled to payment following its substitution for the original sub-contractor. The court held that this was a novation.

Misrepresentation in quotation
EQ Projects v Alavi [2005] All ER (D) 287 TCC

Although the court held that a false representation had been made in a quotation given by an agent showing a higher figure than that agreed by agent and contractor, this was not sufficient to establish fraud. However, there was a total failure of consideration for the additional amount. The client had not been told of the uplift and because he had not agreed to it, it was not payable.

GENERAL AND PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

Design Liability
Ove Arup & Partners v Mirant Asia-Pacific Construction (Hong Kong) [2005] All ER (D) 322 BLM February 2006 Vol.23 No.2 CA

This is the CA decision dismissing the appeal against the TCC’s decision. The CA held that the defendant designers, who had been working on a power station project in the Philippines, were in breach of their obligation under the design agreement to verify their design assumptions to the load-bearing capacity of the site. The CA, relying on Yorkshire Water Services v Taylor Woodrow Construction (Timothy Elliott QC and Gideon Scott Holland), held that the defendants would have a ‘distinctly uphill task’ in trying to persuade the CA to interfere with a specialist judge’s findings in a complex technical case.

Damage to buildings by trees
Loftus-Brigham v Ealing London Borough Council [2006] 103 Con LR 102 CA

This is important for the Court of Appeal’s confirmation that the rules on causation were the same in negligence and in nuisance for the purposes of an action by the claimant householder against the local authority responsible for trees on adjacent land. The claimants would have to prove a substantial contribution to the damage. Paterson v Humberside does not lay down special causation rules for tree-root cases; it applies the principles to a factual situation. The claimants succeeded in the CA in showing that the judge had applied the wrong causation test.

See Burford NW3 v Brian Warwicker Partnership
Under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on contribution allocation between M&E engineer and architect in design liability case.

Payment for additional work
Clark Smith Partnership Ltd v Leyton Football Club Ltd
[2006] AllER (D) 05 TCC

The defendant client denied liability to pay the claimant engineers for additional services, carried out by the engineers without informing the client. However, the court held that notification of the additional work was not a condition precedent to payment under the ACE Conditions of Contract.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Limitation: Pirelli lives on
Abbott v Will Gannon & Smith Ltd [2006] 103 Con LR 92 CA

Already reported in BLR, this is a limitation case upholding Pirelli v Oscar Faber and Ketteman v Hansel. The first instance decision was that "if cracks first appeared within six years of the issue of proceedings, [the claim] is not statute-barred". The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal of the defendant engineers; Murphy v Brentwood has not overruled either of these authorities, which continue to govern cases on the accrual of the cause of action in tort in latent damage cases.

See Decoma UK v Haden Drysys International (No 2) under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on the costs implications of a claimant accepting out of time payment into court.

Rectification
George Wimpey UK Ltd v VI Construction Ltd [2006] 103 Con LR 67 CA

Already reported in BLR, in this case the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the owners of a development site against an order of rectification made in favour of Wimpey in respect of the formula for determining the price of the site. The case provides a major review of the circumstances in which rectification of a contract document might be granted. Here there was a unilateral mistake by Wimpey, but they had not proved sharp practice or dishonesty by the vendors.

See Bella Casa v Vinestone under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on the measure of damages for deprivation of use of a residential property.

Damages for trespass
Horsford v Bird [2006] UK PC 3 BLM February 2006 Vol.23 No.2 Privy Council

The defendant owner’s contractors encroached onto the claimant’s property in constructing a boundary wall and fence in Antigua. The claimant got damages, although not an injunction to demolish at trial but the Court of Appeal of Jamaica reduced the damages payable, disallowing aggravated damages. The Privy Council also rejected the claim for aggravated damages; taking unsustainable points in defence did not constitute ‘high-handed, insulting or oppressive’ conduct, although it might go to costs. However, the Privy Council allowed the claimant’s appeal on quantum. The value of the land should be the starting point, plus the value of the enhancement of the amenities of the defendant’s house.

See Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects v SIAC Construction under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on grant of a stay on joinder of a new party to allow pre-action protocol procedures.

See Briggs & Forrester Electrical v Governors of Southfield School for Girls under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on orders for disclosure of documents under the pre-action protocol.

Default judgment set aside
Intense Investments Ltd v Development Ventures Ltd [2005] BLR 478 TCC

Exceptionally, a default judgment granted against the defendants could be set aside under CPR Part 13. This should be done in this case because the remedy sought by the plaintiff was non-monetary i.e. a declaration and an account of profits, which required notice to be given to the defendant under CPR Part 23, before seeking a default judgment. Since this was not done, the default judgment was set aside as invalid. The judge could in any event exercise Part 13 discretion to set it aside, based on conduct and realistic prospects of a successful defence.

See Birse Construction v McCormick UK under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on the meaning and existence of a ‘dispute’ for limitation purposes.

Part 36 Offer
Stokes Pension Fund v Western Power Distribution [2005] BLR 497 CA

Already reported in CILL, this concerns the effect of Part 36 offers. Landowners had claimed £780,000 for trespass from a utility company, who offered £35,000 ‘without prejudice save as to costs’, but only paid £20,000 into court. The judge took no account of the offer in making his costs order, since the award of £25,600 had beaten the payment in. However, the CA upheld the defendant utility company’s appeal against the costs order. The judge should have taken the offer into account but had been correct in reducing costs because of the claimants’ exaggeration of their claim.

International Construction Law Review Vol.23 Part 1 Jan 2006 contains the following articles:

The Contractor’s view on the MDB Harmonised Version of the New Red Book
by Richard Appuhn and Eric Eggink, Salini Construttori

The Contrat de Partenariat: a new form of French Public Private Partnership allowing the use of arbitration to adjudicate disputes
by Pierre Heitzmann, Jones Day, Paris

NEC 3: a change for the better or a missed opportunity?
by Martin Bridgewater, Herbert Smith and Andrew Hemsley, Cyril Sweett

Optimising contracting for alliances in infrastructure projects
by Matton Van Den Berg and Peter Kamminga, Tilburg University

Construction industry payment and adjudication legislation: the choice that lies ahead for Malaysia
by Adam Constable, Keating Chambers

JCT Standard Forms of Building Contract 2005 Editions: Part 1
by Sarah Lupton, Cardiff University

Dispute Boards – good news and bad news: The 2005 ‘Harmonised’ Conditions of Contract prepared by Multilateral Development Banks and FIDIC
by Gordon Jaynes

Service by e-mail
Bernuth Lines v High Seas Shipping [2005] All ER (D) 332 Commercial Court

Where communications regarding a dispute were sent by e-mail, the recipient treated them as ‘spam’ and they were ignored. The issue arose as to whether the arbitration was validly commenced. It was held that sending of the documents by e-mail to the published address of the recipient was effective. The material sent bore none of the hallmarks of ‘spam’.

The Commercial Litigation Journal November/ December 2005 No 4 contains the following articles:

Costs – the future of Part 36 payments
by Neil Jamieson and Caroline Evans, Barlow Lyde & Gilbert (on Stokes Pension Fund v Western Power Distribution.

Third Party costs recovery – myth or reality
by Alex Ferrari, Clyde &Co.

The role of modern non-execs.
by Clare Canning, Barlow Lyde & Gilbert.

Two cautionary tales
by Paul Friedman and Nick Wilcox, Clyde & Co.
on confidentiality and liability for breach of confidence under the Data Protection Act 1998).

Arbitration agreement thrown out
by Richard Power, Berwin Leighton Paisner (on C v RHL)

Getting money out of states – a tale of two countries
by Tim Taylor, SJ Berwin (on the State Immunity Act 1978).

Flattery or rip-off?
by Paul Sutton and Lynn Douglas, Orchard Brayton Graham (on copyright).

A litigator’s perspective
by Loannis Alexopoules, DLA Piper Rudnick (on the Company Law Reform Bill).

KEATING CHAMBERS REPORTED CASES

Birse Construction Ltd v McCormick UK Ltd [2005] BLR 523 CA

This is the appeal decision of the TCC judgment, both making further additions to the body of recent authority on the meaning and existence of a dispute. In the appeal it was contended that express or implied refusal of the estimate for site establishment costs would not give rise to a cause of action and that the judge had confused ‘dispute’ with cause of action. This was rejected: the judge had correctly concluded that the cause of action arose when the defendant had rejected a claim or failed to respond to it within a reasonable time: the dispute arose at the same time.
Paul Darling QC
Alexander Nissen

Surefire Systems Ltd v Guardian ECL Ltd [2005] BLR 534 TCC

This was an attempt to obtain leave to challenge an arbitrator’s award under s.69 of the Arbitration Act. Surefire was a trade contractor for the design and installation of a fire and voice alarm system in the County Hall building in London and Guardian, a cable installation sub-contractor, who claimed loss and expense. Surefire attempted to challenge the award of £102,000 out of the £500,000 claimed, on the ground that the arbitrator was wrong on the burden of proof and wrong to award sums where the contractual payment mechanism had not been used. The court held that neither of these issues involved a question of law for the purposes of s.69 Arbitration Act.
Adam Constable

Briggs & Forrester Electrical v Governors of Southfield School for Girls [2005] BLR 469 TCC

Already reported in CILL, the case concerned alleged asbestos contamination by electrical contractors, leading to closure of the School. The TCC had to consider the extent to which disclosure should be granted against the School in favour of the defendant contractors. The court held that it would exercise its discretion in favour of an order for disclosure of quantum documents, but not for a wider order, since the parties were still operating under the pre-action protocol.
Simon Hargreaves

Henry Boot Construction Ltd v Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd [2005] BLR 437 CA

This concerns the point at which the contractor’s right to payment arises and whether (in an ICE 6th contract) the issue of a certificate is a condition precedent to payment. The right to claim interest on a sum which should have been certified becomes statute-barred six years after the accrual of the right.
Stephen Furst QC

Bella Casa Ltd v Vinestone Ltd [2005] All ER (D) 163 BLM February 2006 Vol.23 No.2 TCC

The TCC had to consider the measure of damages in respect of deprivation of use of a residential building following allegedly defective design and construction work. The court held that such matters as service charges and utility bills might be recoverable in principle, but that general damages calculated by reference to interest on the balance of the purchase price could not be recovered as contrary to principle.
Finola O’Farrell QC
Justin Mort

Quietfield Ltd Vascroft Contractors Ltd [2006] All ER (D) 17 TCC

The claimant employer’s action for enforcement of an adjudicator’s award of liquidated damages in its favour was unsuccessful. The court found that the adjudicator had been wrong to refuse to consider the defendant’s submissions in the second adjudication, on liquidated damages, having regarded the first adjudication, refusing an extension of time to the contractor as determinative of this issue. The judge took the view that the contractor’s arguments in the second adjudication were ‘a far cry’ from the matters considered in the first adjudication and so should have been taken into account.
Matthew Holt
Abdul-Lateef Jinadu

Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd v SIAC Construction [2006] All ER (D) 193 TCC

The court had to consider the operation of the pre-action protocol in circumstances where the defendant sought to join a Part 20 defendant and the claimant sought to join that party as a defendant in the main proceedings. The question was whether a stay should be granted of both main and Part 20 proceedings to allow compliance with the pre-action protocol in relation to the new defendant. The court, rejecting the application for the stay, set out the following relevant considerations for courts in exercising discretion in such cases:

  1. when was it known that the new party was going to join the action?
  2. what information about the dispute had been given to that party and when?
  3. how large a part did the new party play in the action as a whole?
  4. could a stay be accommodated without jeopardising the overall timetable?
  5. did justice require a new trial date?
  6. could the new party be compensated in costs for non-compliance with the protocol?
  7. Was there any alternative to a stay within the existing timetable?
Paul Darling QC
Simon Hargreaves

Decoma UK Ltd v Haden Drysy International Ltd [2006] CILL 2303 TCC

The issue was whether the party in breach of contract in failing to complete on time and to specification could rely on a contract clause capping its liability. The claimant sought to argue that the defendant contractor would be profiting from its own wrong if it was allowed to do so. The court rejected this argument; it had been clearly agreed that the defendant’s liability would be limited to 5% of contract price and the nature and extent of the breaches of contract were irrelevant.
Marcus Taverner QC

Shawton Engineering Ltd v DGP International [2006] CILL 2306 CA

This case arose from a design sub-sub-contract relating to a process plant in Sellafield for handling nuclear waste. The issue arose as to the circumstances in which a contracting party could lawfully terminate a contract for delay in performance where the obligation was to complete within a reasonable time.
David Thomas QC
Adam Constable

Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Dockyard Ltd [2006] CILL 2297 CA

This is part of extensive litigation arising from the dockyard project, being an appeal on the adjudicator’s powers to award interest. The CA dismissed the client’s appeal against the TCC decision. There is no free-standing power to award interest under cl.20(c) of the Scheme. However, in the circumstances, the client had not disputed the adjudicator’s power to award interest on moneys outstanding. The parties had therefore agreed that interest should come within the scope of the adjudication, conferring on him a jurisdiction he would not otherwise have had.
Stephen Furst QC
Louise Randall

The articles and papers published by Keating Chambers are for the purpose of raising general awareness of issues and stimulating discussion. The contents must not be relied upon or applied in any given situation. There is no substitute for taking appropriate professional advice.

This material is prepared for Chambers by our Director of Research and Professional Development, Professor Anthony Lavers (LL.B., M.Phil, Ph.D. MCI.Arb, MRICS Barrister), Visiting Professor of Law, Oxford Brookes University.

 

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.