Content area
Full Text
One of the dilemmas faced by anyone contemplating adjudication, or any other formal means of dispute resolution, is that while they obviously hope to get a favourable answer that will be binding upon both parties, an unfavourable answer will be just as binding.
It is for this reason that welladvised parties will normally take a lot of care to ensure that the dispute referred to adjudication is precisely that upon which the decision is sought - no more and no less - thus minimising the risk that a decision is obtained that has wider and unintended consequences.
Interim application
One example of how this can be achieved is where a contractor seeks to refer a dispute based upon the value of an interim application, with the intention that if the answer is not to its liking, then there may be scope to subsequently adjudicate a further dispute concerning the final account.
Alternatively, a contractor may refer a dispute as to whether a particular instruction gives rise to a variation, while keeping arguments in relation to other disputed instructions in reserve for another day.
In the case of Quietfield Limited -v- Vascroft Construction Limited, the judge refused to enforce an adjudicator's decision on the grounds that he had failed to consider certain matters raised by Vascroft in its defence of Quietfield's claim for the payment of liquidated damages.
The matters raised by Vascroft comprised a comprehensive extension of time submission, which the adjudicator was...