Cases - AWG Construction Services Ltd v Rockingham Motor Speedway Ltd
Record details
- Name
- AWG Construction Services Ltd v Rockingham Motor Speedway Ltd
- Date
- [2004]
- Citation
- EWHC 88
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Construction contracts - adjudication - adjudicator's jurisdiction - scope of referral - context of referral - dispute - procedural fairness - application to set aside adjudicator's award
- Summary
-
AWG were design and build contractors for Rockingham in relation to a speedway race track. Despite remedial works being undertaken by AWG, problems arose with regard to the dispersal of surface water on the track.
Rockingham referred the matter to adjudication and the parties agreed that the dispute should be heard with two others arising out of the same contract.
Rockingham's initial argument was that AWG's choice of subbase under the track had been negligent. However, a few days before the end of the adjudication Rockingham changed its arguments to the effect that the problem was caused by the absence of drainage.
The adjudicator decided in favour of Rockingham in relation to this amended claim and in relation to the other two disputes.
AWG applied to the court for a declaration that the adjudicator's decision was unenforceable on the basis that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to consider the drainage argument as that was not one of the matters referred to in the notice of intention to adjudicate.
The court held that the adjudicator was not rigidly confined to consider only those matters and arguments specifically referred to in the notice of intention to adjudicate, but that a wide interpretation ought to be given to the word 'dispute'. The test was, what had the parties agreed to refer to adjudication, and, so far as evidence was concerned, on what basis? Each case depended on its own circumstances and the context of the referral.
However, where the adjudicator's findings were essentially different to the basis upon which the matter had been referred, that might be relevant to procedural fairness and to the adjudicator's jurisdiction. In the circumstances of the instant case, the basis upon which the adjudicator had found for Rockingham was essentially a different dispute from that originally referred.
In relation to the disputes that were not under challenge, these would be enforced.