Hurst Stores Ltd v M.L.Europe Property Ltd [2003] EWHC 1650HT 02 322

This was one of those rare cases where the matter proceeded to court following an adjudication and where the Court overturned the adjudicator's findings. There was a dispute over the Hurst accounts. The Adjudicator had held that the Hurst account was of a binding nature and that no further claims could be made for events which occurred up to the date of the account. This effectively barred Hurst's final account in the sum of some ?2.5m. Hurst said that the documents should not be binding for two reasons. First, the project manager did not have authority to enter into such an agreement and second, the document was entered into on the basis of a unilateral mistake on the part of the project manager and the documents should be rectified so as to remove reference to full and final settlement of claims. Mr Recorder Reese QC agreed and so ML could not be allowed to place reliance on the documents which therefore did not have any binding effect in respect of the claims for delay and disruption that Hurst intended to make.

Click here to read full-screen | Click here to print the case