Chamberlain Carpentry & Joinery Ltd v Alfred McAlpine [2002] EWHC 514 (TCC)

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP.

For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes

What constitutes a "single dispute" is a question of fact. It is possible that a substantial dispute with a number of different elements may constitute a "single dispute"

R Seymour QC

25 March 2002, TCC

A sub-contracted C to carry out various works in relation to a hotel. The Sub-Contract entitled either party to refer any dispute to adjudication in accordance with the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and in accordance with the Alfred McAlpine Special Projects Adjudication Rules (June 2000 Edition).

These Rules provided that the referring party may give written notice of his intention to refer any dispute arising under the contract to adjudication; that such notice must set out and provide the nature and description of the dispute, and details and relevant copies of the contract documents under which it arises; the nature and details of the redress which is sought; that the adjudicator may, if requested by A, adjudicate at the same time on one or more disputes under the same contract; and that the adjudicator shall decide only those matters as identified in the notice of adjudication.

By a letter headed "Notice of Adjudication", C informed A of a dispute, stating that no agreement had been reached as to the value of C's works on site. The letter stated that a dispute arising under the Sub-Contract existed between C and A as to matters that were then listed. Finally, the letter stated that for the avoidance of doubt, all of the above matters constituted "The Dispute", that it was C's intention to refer this to adjudication and identified the redress sought, which was "the Adjudicator's decision as to the amount owing … and wrongfully withheld".

An adjudicator was appointed and determined that A should pay within 7 days the sum of £55,834.98. M did not pay and C sought enforcement of the adjudicator's decision.

A's defence was that what C sought to refer to adjudication was not a dispute, but a number of disputes. A claimed that the adjudication notice submitted by C was invalid and that as the adjudicator's jurisdiction depended upon the terms of the notice of adjudication, the adjudicator had had no jurisdiction.

The Judge held that what constitutes a dispute fit to be referred to as a single dispute is a question of fact. It is possible to properly characterise a substantial dispute with a number of different elements as a "single dispute". It is not possible, however, for a referring party in his notice of adjudication to characterise as a single dispute whatever he chooses.

Here, the proper construction of C's letter was that an order of the adjudicator was sought as to the amount owing to C. This amounted to a single dispute. It did not matter that in order to reach that conclusion a number of elements, contended by the referring party and relevant to the overall calculation, needed to be considered. C's letter was therefore a valid notice of adjudication.

What constitutes a "single dispute" is a question of fact. It is possible that a substantial dispute with a number of different elements may constitute a "single dispute".

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP.

For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes

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