Stubbs Rich Architects v W H Tolley Ltd [2001] BP001105

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP.

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

An Adjudicator's fees can only be challenged under the JCT Adjudication Agreement if the Adjudicator has acted in bad faith. The hours worked by the Adjudicator here were not excessive given that the Adjudicator acted as investigator and judge.

Recorder Lane QC, Gloucester County Court

8 August 2001

This was an appeal by S, the Architect, from a first instance decision awarding WHT, a building contractor, the sum of £1,175 plus interest fees and costs.

T entered into two separate JCT Agreements for Minor Works with Torridge District Council. Disputes arose between T and the Council on both Agreements. The disputes were referred to adjudication under the provisions of the JCT contracts and an Adjudicator was appointed from S. An Adjudicator's Agreement concluded between S, T and the Council provided for the Adjudicator's remuneration.

The Adjudicator investigated the disputes and delivered two written decisions. With his decisions he also included his fees notes amounting to £1,561.50 plus VAT. Although T paid these fees it said that it did so under duress alleging that the hours performed by the Adjudicator were unreasonably excessive. Subsequently T issued a claim to recover the alleged overpayment. At first instance the Judge found in favour of T believing that the hours spent by S on the adjudication were, in fact, excessive and awarded T £1,395. Although S repaid this sum it appealed against the first instance decision citing immunity under the adjudication agreement and denying that excessive hours had been worked.

In relation to immunity Recorder Lane QC held, according to the terms of the Adjudication Agreement, that the Adjudicator's fees could only be challenged if the Adjudicator had acted in bad faith. There was no suggestion that the Adjudicator had in fact acted in bad faith. Rather T had accepted that the Adjudicator had worked the hours claimed. Further in considering whether the hours spent by the Adjudicator in dealing with the disputes were excessive Recorder Lane QC considered the fact that an Adjudicator has to undertake the role of both investigator and Judge. On the facts of this case the hours worked by the Adjudicator were not therefore excessive.

An Adjudicator's fees can only be challenged under the JCT Adjudication Agreement if the Adjudicator has acted in bad faith. The hours worked by the Adjudicator here were not excessive given that the Adjudicator acted as investigator and judge.

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