Cases - Sherwood & Casson Ltd v Mackenzie
Record details
- Name
- Sherwood & Casson Ltd v Mackenzie
- Date
- 30 November 1999
- Citation
- Unreported
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Construction contracts - adjudication - adjudicator's jurisdiction - court's jurisdiction - enforcement - second adjudication - substantially same dispute - whether two disputes were substantially the same - whether the court had jurisdiction to enquire into the adjudicator's jurisdiction - whether the adjudicator should have resigned - The Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998
- Summary
-
Sherwood were subcontractors for the provision of steelwork and cladding; McKenzie were the main contractors. In a dispute between the parties the adjudicator had decided that Mackenzie should pay Sherwood £12,803.14.
During enforcement proceedings it was argued that the adjudicator's decision related to substantially the same dispute that had been referred for determination by an adjudicator previously.
The judge concluded that the Scheme's wording was perfectly clear - namely that if the two disputes are substantially the same, the adjudicator must resign. This was a matter as to the adjudicator's jurisdiction, which must be determined by the court. The inquiry undertaken by the court should be conducted for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not two separate disputes are substantially the same. The court is not concerned to investigate the merits of the dispute, let alone resolve them.
In determining whether the two disputes were substantially the same, the judge was referred to the fact that the first dispute related to an interim valuation whereas the second dispute related to the valuation of the final account. The judge concluded that the two disputes were clearly different and refused to be drawn into any further consideration as to whether or not the adjudicator had made the right decision.