- Home
- Nomination
- UK Cases
- Overseas Cases
- Panel
- Guidance
- Glossary
- Legislation
- England & Wales
- Wales
- Scotland
- Northern Ireland
- Australia (Australian Capital Territory)
- Australia (New South Wales)
- Australia (Northern Territory)
- Australia (Queensland)
- Australia (Southern Territory)
- Australia (Tasmania)
- Australia (Victoria)
- Australia (Western Australia)
- Eire
- Isle of Man
- Malaysia
- New Zealand
- Singapore
- Links
- Contact Us
C & B Scene Concept Design Ltd v Isobars Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 46
This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP.
For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes
Procedural, factual or legal errors do not in themselves mean that an adjudicator has exceeded his jurisdiction.
Court of Appeal (Potter, Rix LJJ and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith)
31 January 2002
The facts and decision at first instance are set out on page 74. The claimant, CB, appealed from that decision.
On appeal I did not appear and was not represented. Consequently, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith (with whom the other judges agreed) proceeded on the assumption – without deciding it - that the Recorder was correct that the adjudicator had erred and addressed only the issue as to whether the adjudicator had therefore acted outside his jurisdiction.
The judge approved the formulation of the principles to be used to determine whether an adjudicator has exceeded his jurisdiction set out in Sherwood and Casson (and adopted in Northern Developments v J&J Nichol) – particular points of interest in this case being the principles that adjudication is intended to be a speedy process for the resolution of disputes in which mistakes will inevitably occur, and that the courts should guard against characterising a mistaken answer to an issue, which is within an adjudicator's jurisdiction, as being an excess of jurisdiction. The judge held that:
"Errors of procedure, fact or law are not sufficient to prevent enforcement of an adjudicator's decision by summary judgment".
The Court of Appeal's other judgment to date on the adjudication regime in Bouygues (UK) Ltd v Dahl-Jensen (UK) Ltd was cited as a striking example of this.
The question the adjudicator had to answer here was clear: namely the Employer's obligation to make payment. The Adjudicator had to resolve as a matter of law whether Clauses 30.3.3-6 applied or not, and if they did, what was the effect of a failure to serve a timeous notice by the I. The courts found that, even if he was wrong on both these points, that did not affect his jurisdiction. Therefore the Court reversed the Recorder's decision.
Procedural, factual or legal errors do not in themselves mean that an adjudicator has exceeded his jurisdiction.
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