Cases - Joinery Plus Ltd (In Administration) v Laing Ltd
Record details
- Name
- Joinery Plus Ltd (In Administration) v Laing Ltd
- Date
- [2003]; (2003)
- Citation
- EWHC 3513; BLR 184: 87 Con LR 87
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Construction contracts - adjudication - insolvency - liquidation - jurisdiction - adjudicator's errors - accidental slips - reference to wrong conditions of contract - whether decision a nullity - whether errors capable of being corrected - set-off - cross-claim - total failure of consideration - acceptance of cheque as acceptance of adjudication - Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998, paragraph 9
- Summary
-
Laing entered into 2 separate subcontracts with Joinery to carry out works. Disputes concerning each subcontract had been referred to the same adjudicator. He had made awards in favour of Joinery in each case and they had been paid.
However, Joinery then sought a declaration from the court as to whether the decision in the second adjudication was valid, claiming that the adjudicator had based his decision on the wrong subcontract conditions.
The court held that the adjudicator had resorted to the wrong contract conditions when considering significant parts of the question referred to him. These were fundamental errors, not capable of correction under his implied power to correct accidental slips, rather than mere errors of law within his jurisdiction. The decision was thus a nullity and made without jurisdiction.
When an adjudicator gives reasons, they may be used to construe and understand his decision. In this case, the adjudicator's reasons indicated that his errors were so substantial that they affected the validity of the decision. Joinery's receipt of Laing's cheque did not mean that it had accepted or approbated the adjudicator's decision, as it had made clear that it was challenging the decision and that it was accepting the cheque only generally, on account of Laing's obligations under the subcontract.
Joinery did not have to repay the money to Laing, as Joinery had a set-off and an equitable cross-claim in the same amount. Joinery could refer the same dispute to another adjudicator.
Finally, paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (which requires an adjudicator to resign if the dispute is the same as one that was previously referred and a decision was made) did not apply, as the decision was a nullity.