Emcor Drake & Scull Limited (formerly known as Drake & Scull Engineering Limited) v (1) Costain Construction Limited (2) Skanska Central Europe AB (t/a Costain Skanska JV)
Case reference:
[2004] EWHC 2439 (TCC)
Friday, 29 October 2004
Key terms: Jurisdiction - exceeding jurisdiction - multiple adjudications - abuse of adjudication process - DOM/2 1981
The claimant, EDS, was a principal sub-contractor carrying out the design and installation of electrical services at the Great Western Royal Hotel, Paddington. Costain Skanska Joint Venture was the contractor. The contract was the DOM/2 1981 edition including some amendments. EDS sought to enforce the decision of an adjudicator made on 1 July 2004. He decided that EDS were entitled to an extension of time and payment of the sum of ?201,069.34 plus VAT.
A previous adjudicator’s decision on 8 May 2003 decided that EDS was not entitled to a declaration of an entitlement to an extension of time. EDS had made three extension of time claims. The first related to bedrooms, the second subsumed the first but provided additional events. The third was a revised claim based upon events and material comprised in the previous claims. The first adjudicator’s decision related to the first extension of time claim. The second decision, and the one that was the subject of this judgment, related to the final extension of time submission.
Joint Venture refused to pay on the basis that the adjudicator’s decision was made (1) without jurisdiction, (2) in excess of jurisdiction or (3) the referral to adjudication was an abuse of the adjudication process. Essentially, the Joint Venture was arguing that clause 11.7 of the contract provided only one opportunity to grant an extension of time. Second, that the facts and matters relied upon in the adjudication had already been adjudicated in the first decision. As a result, the second adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction. Third, the first adjudicator had already decided that EDS was not entitled to any extension of time. Finally, the second adjudication was based almost entirely on facts, matters and documents that had been considered in the first adjudication, and therefore was an abuse of the adjudication process.
HHJ Havery QC came to the conclusion that the first adjudicator did not decide that EDS was not entitled to an extension of time, but decided that EDS had merely not discharged the burden of showing that they were entitled to an extension of time. The second adjudicator did consider the facts and matters considered by the first, but that was not objectionable. The second adjudicator did not trespass into the decision made by the first, but considered the extension of time claim before him and made a decision about the material included within the reference. The decision was therefore valid, and the need to respond quickly to large amounts of paperwork could not be considered an abuse of process. The decision was therefore enforced.
A previous adjudicator’s decision on 8 May 2003 decided that EDS was not entitled to a declaration of an entitlement to an extension of time. EDS had made three extension of time claims. The first related to bedrooms, the second subsumed the first but provided additional events. The third was a revised claim based upon events and material comprised in the previous claims. The first adjudicator’s decision related to the first extension of time claim. The second decision, and the one that was the subject of this judgment, related to the final extension of time submission.
Joint Venture refused to pay on the basis that the adjudicator’s decision was made (1) without jurisdiction, (2) in excess of jurisdiction or (3) the referral to adjudication was an abuse of the adjudication process. Essentially, the Joint Venture was arguing that clause 11.7 of the contract provided only one opportunity to grant an extension of time. Second, that the facts and matters relied upon in the adjudication had already been adjudicated in the first decision. As a result, the second adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction. Third, the first adjudicator had already decided that EDS was not entitled to any extension of time. Finally, the second adjudication was based almost entirely on facts, matters and documents that had been considered in the first adjudication, and therefore was an abuse of the adjudication process.
HHJ Havery QC came to the conclusion that the first adjudicator did not decide that EDS was not entitled to an extension of time, but decided that EDS had merely not discharged the burden of showing that they were entitled to an extension of time. The second adjudicator did consider the facts and matters considered by the first, but that was not objectionable. The second adjudicator did not trespass into the decision made by the first, but considered the extension of time claim before him and made a decision about the material included within the reference. The decision was therefore valid, and the need to respond quickly to large amounts of paperwork could not be considered an abuse of process. The decision was therefore enforced.