Ardmore Construction Limited v Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited
Case reference:
[2006] CSOH 3
Thursday, 12 January 2006
Key terms: Enforcement of Adjudicator’s decision - Sub-Contract Agreement 1998 Edition (Scott) - Clause 27 - Breach of Natural Justice - Overtime Claim - Contradictory Evidence
Ardmore Construction Limited were a sub-contractor to Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited in respect of work to Glasgow Harbour. They had been engaged on the Sub-Contract Agreement June 1998 Edition (Scott). The dispute was referred to adjudication pursuant to clause 27. Part of that dispute related to overtime working.
During the later stages of the adjudication further documentation had been submitted by Ardmore. Taylor Woodrow complained that they had not had sufficient time to consider and comment upon the documents. Ardmore would not agree to an extension of time. Taylor Woodrow submitted that the claim should fail for a lack of appropriate vouching, and that the new documents should not be considered because there had not been sufficient time to comment upon the documents.
A meeting was called by the Adjudicator and attended by representatives of the parties. As a result of the adjudication process, the Adjudicator awarded an amount to the sub-contractor, and as part of the decision the Adjudicator stated that Taylor Woodrow either verbally instructed the referring party to continue or had acquiesced.
Taylor Woodrow refused to pay the amount required by the Adjudicator’s decision the basis that there had been a breach of natural justice by the Adjudicator. During the adjudication Taylor Woodrow argued that Ardmore had not produced any vouching for the overtime claim. The issues between the parties had been set out in correspondence which comprised the contractual basis for the claim and whether the sub-contractors had adequately vouched the sums claimed.
In the enforcement proceedings Taylor Woodrow argued that the verbal instructions and acquiesces points had not been raised during the adjudication. The sub-contractor and Adjudicator gave evidence that those issues had been raised. However, on balance the Judge decided that Taylor Woodrow’s evidence was to be preferred, and that the sub-contractor and Adjudicator were simply ex-post facto rationalising or justifying the Adjudicator’s decision. As a result the Judge was of the opinion that these arguments were not properly considered during the course of the adjudication and as a result there had been a basic breach of natural justice. He therefore refused to enforce the Adjudicator’s decision.
During the later stages of the adjudication further documentation had been submitted by Ardmore. Taylor Woodrow complained that they had not had sufficient time to consider and comment upon the documents. Ardmore would not agree to an extension of time. Taylor Woodrow submitted that the claim should fail for a lack of appropriate vouching, and that the new documents should not be considered because there had not been sufficient time to comment upon the documents.
A meeting was called by the Adjudicator and attended by representatives of the parties. As a result of the adjudication process, the Adjudicator awarded an amount to the sub-contractor, and as part of the decision the Adjudicator stated that Taylor Woodrow either verbally instructed the referring party to continue or had acquiesced.
Taylor Woodrow refused to pay the amount required by the Adjudicator’s decision the basis that there had been a breach of natural justice by the Adjudicator. During the adjudication Taylor Woodrow argued that Ardmore had not produced any vouching for the overtime claim. The issues between the parties had been set out in correspondence which comprised the contractual basis for the claim and whether the sub-contractors had adequately vouched the sums claimed.
In the enforcement proceedings Taylor Woodrow argued that the verbal instructions and acquiesces points had not been raised during the adjudication. The sub-contractor and Adjudicator gave evidence that those issues had been raised. However, on balance the Judge decided that Taylor Woodrow’s evidence was to be preferred, and that the sub-contractor and Adjudicator were simply ex-post facto rationalising or justifying the Adjudicator’s decision. As a result the Judge was of the opinion that these arguments were not properly considered during the course of the adjudication and as a result there had been a basic breach of natural justice. He therefore refused to enforce the Adjudicator’s decision.