LPL Electrical Services Ltd v Kershaw Mechanical Services [2001] HT 00/427

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP.

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

Where an adjudicator makes an error of law or interpretation this does not mean that he has acted in excess of his jurisdiction

HHJ Richard Havery QC, Technology and Construction Court

2 February 2001

In this case K was seeking to defend L's summary judgment application under Part 24 of the CPR. K argued that the adjudicator, who had made a decision under HGCRA, did not have jurisdiction to decide how much was due for anything other than one specific application for payment.

In this instance L claimed £70k in accordance with interim application number 8. If this sum was not due then they required a ruling on the amount that was in fact due.

The wording of the contract payment mechanism was unusual. On analysis it seemed to say that the payment applications were cumulative but the amounts applied for were not. For example the amount due under application 8 was the gross amount due under all of the interim applications i.e. amounts due under applications 1-8, less the amounts due under applications 1-7. The contract did not say the amount due under application 8 was less payments previously made. The adjudicator, however, established the gross sum due under application 8 and provided that this sum be paid less previous payments.

The adjudicator also noted that as K's purported notice that L should be paid less than the application was given too late, K was required to pay L's application in full as this became the amount due.

K argued that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to calculate the amount due in this way. K said that the adjudicator only had jurisdiction to determine the amount due under application 8.

The Court, however, ordered K to obey the decision of the adjudicator. The Court held that the adjudicator was construing the meaning of the contract when deciding what was payable and whether he was right or wrong the Court must give effect to his decision until a trial or arbitration on the amount due was heard. The Court's function was to decide whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Where an adjudicator makes an error of law or interpretation then this does not mean he has acted in excess of his jurisdiction.

Where an adjudicator makes an error of law or interpretation this does not mean that he has acted in excess of 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