- 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
Scotland Cases
This page shows all the Scottish cases by default, but you can filter the list by using the search tool above. You can search within the title, key terms, court name, judge's name and case notes fields by inputting a word, or words, or part of a word, or a phrase, into the search box.
-
21st October 2010AMW Plumbing & Heating Ltd v Zoom Developments Ltd CA324/09
-
22nd June 2010RBG Limited v SGL Carbon Fibres Ltd [2010] CSOH 77This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication SUMMARY (1) Where an adjudicator has acted intra vires, the courts will not intervene even if the decision is incorrect. But where an adjudicator has acted ultra vires – for example, by acting in breach of natural justice, or in failure to exercise jurisdiction – it is for the Court to decide whether his decision is vitiated as a result. (2) As regards jurisdiction, an adjudicator, while restricted to issues focused in the dispute, has nevertheless both the power and duty to determine whether or not a claim that is put forward in respect of valuation of work done is validly asserted under the contract. (3) The response to the claim for payment in this case was that no payment was due because of earlier overpayment. Even if this was not a...
-
14th June 2010Atholl Developments v UBC [2010] CSOH 94This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication SUMMARY (1) An award of an adjudicator would not be reduced where errors alleged to have been made by him in his decision failed to show that he had exceeded his jurisdiction or was in material breach of the rules of natural justice. (2) Accordingly an award under the same contract by the same adjudicator in a second adjudication, which was based upon his decision in the first adjudication, should not be reduced on the ground that it was tainted by the first adjudication. (3) Even if the award in the first adjudication had been reduced, the award in the second adjudication would still have been enforceable since the challenge to the first award was not made until after the second award had been issued. Outer House, Court of Session: Opinion of Lord Glennie Background The...