Jerome Engineering Limited v Lloyd Morris Electrical Limited
Friday, 23 November 2001
Key terms: Notice of adjudication - relief sought - DOM2 - clause 38A.4.1
The claimants were sub-contractors, who had carried out mechanical and electrical work at three school sites under DOM2. A dispute in respect of the valuation of variations was referred to adjudication. The adjudicator decided that he could not reach a final value for the variations, but concluded that an interim payment of £70,000 should be made by the defendant. The entire £5,000 fee of the adjudicator was to be paid by the defendant.
The defendant contended that (1) the notice of adjudication was defective as it did not specify the relief sought, (2) no further documents can make good that shortcoming, and (3) the adjudicator did not follow the valuation procedure under DOM2 so rendering his decision unenforceable.
HHJ Cockcroft held that the notice need not specify the amount of relief sought providing that, by reference to the background facts, both parties (perhaps as judged by the officious bystander) "perfectly well knew" the sum of money in dispute. Further, clause 38A.4.1 of DOM2 anticipated that the statement of relief was to be set out in the referral. Finally, the adjudicator asked himself the right question "how much should be paid", and so the approach he adopted was immaterial. The adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction and the decision was enforceable.
HHJ Cockcroft declined to award interest on the payment of £70,000 preferring to leave the calculation until the final account or arbitration. However, he awarded interest on the fee of £5,000 as the defendant should have paid that sum in any event.
The defendant contended that (1) the notice of adjudication was defective as it did not specify the relief sought, (2) no further documents can make good that shortcoming, and (3) the adjudicator did not follow the valuation procedure under DOM2 so rendering his decision unenforceable.
HHJ Cockcroft held that the notice need not specify the amount of relief sought providing that, by reference to the background facts, both parties (perhaps as judged by the officious bystander) "perfectly well knew" the sum of money in dispute. Further, clause 38A.4.1 of DOM2 anticipated that the statement of relief was to be set out in the referral. Finally, the adjudicator asked himself the right question "how much should be paid", and so the approach he adopted was immaterial. The adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction and the decision was enforceable.
HHJ Cockcroft declined to award interest on the payment of £70,000 preferring to leave the calculation until the final account or arbitration. However, he awarded interest on the fee of £5,000 as the defendant should have paid that sum in any event.