Cases - Amec Group Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
Record details
- Name
- Amec Group Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
- Date
- [2010]
- Citation
- EWHC 419 (TCC)
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Adjudication - framework agreement and separate works contracts - multiple disputes under one ajudication but as under one framework contract could be handled as single dispute - objection to validity of ajudicators decision because he did not address every argument dismissed - adjudicator sufficiently appreciated all of the arguments
- Summary
-
Amec were appointed by Thames Water under a framework agreement and hundreds of separate works contracts. Multiple disputes arose which Amec referred to a single adjudication. Thames Water objected on the basis that the applicable contracts were the works contracts and that there were in fact many separate disputes that could not be referred in a single adjudication.
The judge agreed that disputes under separate contracts could not ordinarily be referred in a single adjudication but concluded in that case that the applicable contract was the framework agreement and that there was accordingly a single contract and a single dispute.
On a separate issue Thames Water objected to the validity of the adjudicator’s decision on the basis that the reasons that he had given for his decision did not demonstrate that he had addressed every one of the arguments raised by the parties.
The judge dismissed this argument on the basis that it was not for the court to trawl through the decision and all of the agued points and to refuse to enforce the adjudicator’s decision simply because he had omitted to address one of the argued points in his reasons. What mattered was whether the adjudicator had attempted to answer fairly the broad question that he had been asked.
On the issue of whether the dispute was simply too large and complex to be dealt with fairly in the constraints of an adjudication the judge summarised the law as follows:
'(a) The mere fact that an adjudication is concerned with a large or complex dispute does not of itself make it unsuitable for adjudication: see CIB v. Birse.
(b) What matters is whether, notwithstanding the size or complexity of the dispute, the adjudicator had: (i) sufficiently appreciated the nature of any issue referred to him before giving a decision on that issue, including the submissions of each party; and (ii) was satisfied that he could do broad justice between the parties (see CIB v. Birse).
(c) If the adjudicator felt able to reach a decision within the time limit then a court, when considering whether or not that conclusion was outside the rules of natural justice, would consider the basis on which the adjudicator reached that conclusion (HS Properties). In practical terms, that consideration is likely to amount to no more than a scrutiny of the particular allegations as to why the defendant claims that the adjudicator acted in breach of natural justice.
(d) If the allegation is, as here, that the adjudicator failed to have sufficient regard to the material provided by one party, the court will consider that by reference to the nature of the material; the timing of the provision of that material; and the opportunities available to the parties, both before and during the adjudication, to address the subject matter of that material.'