Cases - LPL Electrical Services Ltd v Kershaw Mechanical Services
Record details
- Name
- LPL Electrical Services Ltd v Kershaw Mechanical Services
- Date
- (2001)
- Citation
- TCC 2 February 2001
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Construction contracts - adjudication - adjudicator's decision - jurisdiction - extent of jurisdiction - lack of jurisdiction - reference to wrong conditions of contract by adjudicator in decision - wrong interpretation of contractual payment mechanism by adjudicator - whether within adjudicator's jurisdiction to decide payment due
- Summary
-
LPL were seeking to enforce the decision of the adjudicator by applying for summary judgment. Kershaw were seeking to resist the application on the basis that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to make the decision that he did.
The argument in relation to jurisdiction arose out of a technical interpretation of the contractual provision relating to interim payments. The adjudicator was asked to decide how much was due pursuant to interim application number eight, and arrived at a sum of approximately £70,000 by valuing the works and deducting the amount already paid. Kershaws argued that this was not a decision that was within the scope of the adjudicator's jurisdiction. They argued that the contract required the adjudicator to value the amount due pursuant to an interim application by deducting the sum that was due under the previous application and not the sum that was paid.
Applying this methodology, Kershaws concluded that the amount payable pursuant to interim application number eight was no more than £172.
The judge concluded that it was clear that the claimant was asking for payment of the sum of £70,000 and that therefore it was within the jurisdiction of the adjudicator to decide that that sum was due. Whether or not the adjudicator's interpretation of the contract was correct, the decision that he made was within his jurisdiction. Judgment was therefore given for LPL.