Irvin v Robertson

Part 8 proceedings to seek a declaration that the parties had entered into a construction contract as defined in section 104 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and that such a contract was in writing as defined within section 104 of the Act.

Further and in the alternative a declaration was sought that in any event the parties had agreed that any dispute could be referred to adjudication under the Defendant's adjudication procedure.

Held: That there was no legal basis for a freestanding agreement to adjudicate and that the parties had not concluded a contract.  The parties were not ad idem on essential issues of design responsibility, price and whether or not there was to be a guaranteed maximum price for the project.

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