![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction Court) Decisions >> J & M Resurfacing Ltd v Orbital Site Services Ltd [2016] EWHC 3901 (TCC) (16 August 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2016/3901.html Cite as: [2016] EWHC 3901 (TCC) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT (QBD)
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
(Sitting as a Deputy Technology and Construction Court Judge)
____________________
J & M RESURFACING LIMITED | Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
ORBITAL SITE SERVICES LIMITED | Defendant |
____________________
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 0207 404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
Web: www.DTIGlobal.com Email: [email protected]
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"1. The adjudication procedure does not involve the final determination of anybody's rights (unless all the parties so wish).
2. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly emphasised that adjudicators' decisions must be enforced, even if they result from errors of procedure, fact or law …
3. Where an adjudicator has acted in excess of his jurisdiction or in serious breach of the rules of natural justice, the court will not enforce his decision …
4. Judges must be astute to examine technical defences with a degree of scepticism consonant with the policy of the 1996 Act. Errors of law, fact or procedure by an adjudicator must be examined critically before the Court accepts that such errors constitute excess of jurisdiction or serious breaches of the rules of natural justice …"
"We do not understand there to be any challenge to those general principles. They are fully supported by the authorities, as the judge demonstrated in his judgment."
"If the adjudicator's analysis of the facts or the law was erroneous, it may follow that he ought to have considered the evidence in question. The possibility of such error is inherent in the adjudication system. It is not a ground for refusing to enforce the adjudicator's decision."
"The objective which underlies the Act and the statutory scheme requires the courts to respect and enforce the adjudicator's decision unless it is plain that the question which he has decided was not the question referred to him or the manner in which he has gone about his task is obviously unfair. It should be only in rare circumstances that the courts will interfere with the decision of an adjudicator."