Cases - C & B Scene Concept Design Ltd v Isobars Ltd

Record details

Name

C & B Scene Concept Design Ltd v Isobars Ltd

Date

[2002]

Citation

EWCA Civ 46

Legislation

• Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
• Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998

Keywords

Construction contracts - Adjudication - Jurisdiction - Error in law - Effect of failure to serve timeous notice - Interim payments - JCT Standard Form with Contractor's Design - Effect of answering right question in the wrong way - Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, section 108 - Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 - enforcement of adjudicator's decision - error of law - error of law by adjudicator

Summary

This was a decision of the Court of Appeal following the Technology and Construction Court 's decision not to enforce the decision of an adjudicator by way of summary judgment.

C & B were the design and build contractors for Isobars in relation to the design, construction and fitting out of a cafe-bar. C & B were appointed under the JCT With Contractor's Design Standard Form of Contract with bespoke amendments. In particular, the payment provisions had been amended. By erroneously applying the contract in its unamended form the adjudicator concluded that C & B were entitled to be paid the full amount for which they had applied because Isobars had failed to issue a counter notice in time.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the enforcement of an adjudicator's decision by summary judgment should not be prevented by arguments that the adjudicator had made errors of law in reaching his decision, unless the adjudicator had purported to decide matters that were not referred to him.

In the present case, there was an entire agreement as to the scope of the dispute, and the adjudicator's decision, although he may have made errors of law as to the relevant contractual provisions, is still binding and enforceable until the matter is corrected in the final determination. The court held that where an adjudicator answers the right question but in the wrong way, his decision stands.

For these reasons the appeal was allowed and the adjudicator's decision was enforced.