Cases - Mecright Ltd v T A Morris Developments Ltd

Record details

Name

Mecright Ltd v T A Morris Developments Ltd

Date

[2001]

Citation

Adj.L.R. 06/22

Keywords

Construction contracts - adjudication - adjudicator's decision - jurisdiction - extent of jurisdiction - notice of intention to adjudicate - whether notice covered disputes referred

Summary

Mecright were seeking to enforce the decision of an adjudicator that they should be paid a sum of approximately £36,000 by Morris together with interest as damages for Morris's repudiation of the subcontract.

Morris were resisting the application for summary judgment on the basis that the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding that Mecright were entitled to be paid damages.

Morris had terminated the subcontract of Mecright, asserting that Mecright had failed to proceed with their works in a reasonable and workmanlike manner.

Mecright refuted Morris's entitlement to terminate their subcontract, as a result of which Morris referred the dispute to adjudication. Morris claimed in the notice of intention to adjudicate a declaration from the adjudicator that the subcontract was cancelled in accordance with the subcontract, and secondly, recovery of damages from the respondent arising out of the cancelled subcontract.

Mecright's response in the adjudication sought, amongst other things, payment to Mecright of approximately £58,000.

The adjudicator decided that Morris in fact repudiated the subcontract by instructing Mecright to cease works, and that as a result Morris should pay Mecright the sum of approximately £26,000 plus VAT as a consequence.

The judge concluded that in the present case the essence of the dispute described in the notice was, first, whether in the circumstances Morris had been entitled to determine its contract with Mecright, and, if so, what sum Morris was entitled to be paid by Mecright in consequence of the determination.

The judge accepted the argument that how much Mecright was entitled to be paid in respect of the execution of the subcontract works or as a result of a wrongful determination of the contract by Morris was not, on a proper construction of the notice, covered by the disputes referred. The judge therefore found in favour of Morris, declining to enforce the decision of the adjudicator on the ground that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to decide what sum was due to Mecright in respect of the execution of the subcontract works.