Kitt & Anor v The Laundry Building Ltd & Anor
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE AKENHEAD
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, an adjudicator claimed fees after the Referring Party refused to pay the adjudicator's decision. The adjudicator sought payment from the Responding Party under a joint and several contract with the Referring Party as a third party. The primary legal issue concerned whether the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction, as the Referring Party argued the decision was unenforceable. The Court found that the adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction, considering all necessary defenses and provided both parties the opportunity to put their case, thus ensuring compliance with natural justice principles. The adjudicator's decision was found enforceable.
JUDGMENT
Mr Justice Akenhead:
In these proceedings, there is a disputed claim by an adjudicator for his fees in connection with an adjudication. The Referring Party (the Part 20 Defendant) was ordered to pay the adjudicator's fees but has declined to do so. Consequently, the adjudicator seeks payment under his contract with the parties on a joint and several basis from the Responding Party to the adjudication, with the Referring Party being brought in as third party. The case arguably raises issues that were considered by the Court of Appeal in PC Harrington Contractors Ltd v Systech International Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1371 . It is said that the adjudicator’s decision was unenforceable because he exceeded his jurisdiction.
The Background
In December 2011, The Laundry Building Limited (“TLB”), the Defendant and Part 20 Claimant, engaged Etcetera Construction Services Ltd (“ETC”) to carry out building work at an old laundry building in Warburton Road Hackney, London. A dispute arose between TLB and ETC in relation to payments. It seems that ETC issued its Final Account on 11 February 2013 and the Contract Administrator (“CA”) certified a payment for ETC on 15 March 2013 but, by letter dated 20 March 2013 to ETC, TLB indicated that it considered that substantially less was payable and that there were cross claims (for liquidated damages, defects and outstanding works, contra charges and work not done and failure to provide Operation and Maintenance Manuals) totalling £83,547; these were payment and payless notices under the legislation. TLB attached an A3 schedule listing every item on the final account, what was claimed, what was assessed by the CA, and, with comments, what TLB assessed was due. An example is Item 13 ("Replace glazing bead"), said to be a variation where the omission value was £2,295 but the addition value was £4,649.40; the CA agreed with these figures but TLB explained that, although it accepted the omission value, it valued the addition at £2,468.20 by reference to the "Provisional Sum rate”. On 20 May 2013 TLB wrote again to ETC apparently in the context that the CA had not issued a further money certificate but TLB considered it necessary for contractual purposes to issue revised figures which showed that there was only a balance due of £14,206.28, which was subject to the same types of cross claim in the sum of £76,360.19, there being therefore no sums due to ETC; a somewhat revised A3 schedule was attached.
On 25 June 2013, ETC s