Cases - St Andrews Bay Development Ltd v HBG Management Ltd
Record details
- Name
- St Andrews Bay Development Ltd v HBG Management Ltd
- Date
- [2003]
- Citation
- (CSOH)
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Construction contracts - adjudication - adjudicator's decision - time limit elapsed - failure by adjudicator to deliver decision within time limit- whether failure to reach decision within time rendered decision a nullity/invalid - Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, section 108
- Summary
-
The adjudicator's decision was due to be released on 5 March 2003. As there had been no decision published by 5pm on that day, enquiry was made by HBG and they were advised that the adjudicator did not intend to release her decision until her fee had been paid. However, she had not had time to issue her invoice.
At 9pm that evening the adjudicator issued her invoice for her fee and by fax dated 6 March HBG indicated its intention to pay the whole fee in order to secure the release of her decision.
The adjudicator then released her decision by fax on 7 March 2003 with reasons communicated to the parties on 10 March 2003. At no time did the adjudicator seek an extension of the time required to produce a decision beyond 5 March 2003.
In these proceedings St Andrews Bay sought a declaration challenging the adjudicator's decision on the basis that she had no power to reach her decision after 5 March 2003.
The judge concluded that the adjudicator was required to reach a decision by 5 March 2003 and had failed to do so. Although she had completed her consideration of the matter by that date, she made no effort to communicate her decision to the parties or to intimate the fact that she had arrived at the decision at that time.
Neither can it be said that the adjudicator was entitled to delay communication or intimation of the decision until her fees were paid, unless she comes to a separate agreement with the parties to that extent.
However, the judge concluded that while the failure of an adjudicator to produce a decision within the time limits is undoubtedly a serious matter, he did not think that it was of sufficient significance to render the decision a nullity. The production of a decision 2 days outside the time limit provided is not such a fundamental error or impropriety that it would vitiate the entire decision. Such a failure is a technical matter, and it is of significance in the present case that no challenge is offered to the merits of the adjudicator's decision.
Therefore the judge refused to declare the decision invalid.