Allied London & Scottish Properties plc v Riverbrae Construction Limited
Case reference:
[1999] ScotCS 224
Monday, 12 July 1999
Key terms: Section 108 HGCRA - final decision - paragraph 23(1) of the Scheme - Peremptory Order
The petitioner was the employer, Allied London, for work carried out by Riverbrae as main contractor and respondent. The work related to payment under 4 separate contracts. An adjudicator had been appointed pursuant to Section 108 of the HGCRA. On 13 May four separate decisions were issued.
The petitioner sought to reduce the amounts claiming that liquidated damages should be deducted from each decision, set-off in respect of an overpayment should be made in relation to a fifth contract, and that sums were extinguished by the operation of the Compensation Act 1592.
Payment had been ordered by the Adjudicator within 14 days. The petitioner attempted to argue that the money should be paid into a joint account pending final resolution of the counterclaims. They also referred to the public law cases of CCSU v Minister for Civil Service [1985] AC 374 and Anisminic v the Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 in support of an opening up and reviewing of the decision.
Lord Kingarth held that the aim of the Act had already been clearly established by HHJ Dyson J. (as he was) in Macob Civil Engineering. The purpose was to “introduce a speedy mechanism for settling disputes”. The Adjudicator had decided that the sums should be paid and as a result, the court had “no duty and no apparent right to investigate and assess these later claims, ….” The Adjudicator did, therefore, not make an error of law going to the root of his jurisdiction and the amounts of the decisions should be paid.
The petitioner sought to reduce the amounts claiming that liquidated damages should be deducted from each decision, set-off in respect of an overpayment should be made in relation to a fifth contract, and that sums were extinguished by the operation of the Compensation Act 1592.
Payment had been ordered by the Adjudicator within 14 days. The petitioner attempted to argue that the money should be paid into a joint account pending final resolution of the counterclaims. They also referred to the public law cases of CCSU v Minister for Civil Service [1985] AC 374 and Anisminic v the Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 in support of an opening up and reviewing of the decision.
Lord Kingarth held that the aim of the Act had already been clearly established by HHJ Dyson J. (as he was) in Macob Civil Engineering. The purpose was to “introduce a speedy mechanism for settling disputes”. The Adjudicator had decided that the sums should be paid and as a result, the court had “no duty and no apparent right to investigate and assess these later claims, ….” The Adjudicator did, therefore, not make an error of law going to the root of his jurisdiction and the amounts of the decisions should be paid.