Cases - Sindall Ltd v Solland and others
Record details
- Name
- Sindall Ltd v Solland and others
- Date
- (2001)
- Citation
- 2 TCLR 30
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Adjudication - time limits - enforcement - jurisdiction - adjudicator
- Summary
-
Sindall was a contractor to Solland. Disputes arose with regard to Sindall's entitlement to an extension of time.
Solland failed to give such an extension, which resulted in Sindall serving notice of suspension and notice of adjudication. The adjudication resulted in the adjudicator deciding that Sindall were entitled to a 28-week extension of time to 29 August 2000 and an additional sum of £462,222.51 plus VAT.
On 1 December 2000 Solland served notice of determination on Sindall for failing to proceed regularly and diligently. On 21 December 2000 Solland determined Sindall's employment.
On 9 February 2001 Sindall sent to Solland three lever-arch files and supporting information in support of its claim for an extension of time and demanding a response within seven days. Solland responded that they needed more time.
On 16 February 2001 a notice of intention to adjudicate was served by Sindall. That notice sought a declaration that the determination was wrongful, and in the alternative that Sindall were entitled to a further extension of time and loss and expense.
The adjudicator decided that the determination was wrongful and that a further extension of time was due.
Sindall brought these proceedings to enforce the decision of the adjudicator. Solland resisted enforcement on the ground that at the time that the notice of intention to adjudicate was served on 15 or 16 February 2001, there was no dispute as insufficient time had elapsed since service of the files on 9 February 2001.
With regard to this point the judge concluded that for there to be a dispute for the purposes of exercising the statutory right to adjudication, it must be clear that a point has emerged in the process of discussion or negotiation which needs to be decided. At the time when the second adjudication as to extension of time was started, it was not yet clear that there was a dispute as to this because Sindall had not given Solland adequate time to respond in all the circumstances.
The notice of adjudication (assuming it to refer solely to the claim for an extension of time) was well meant, but, because of the letter of 9 February 2001, it was premature. Therefore the adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding on a matter that was not in dispute at the time of the notice.
In enforcing the adjudicator's award, the Court held that when evaluating a claim for an extension of time, a contract administrator should consider all matters which might give rise to a valid claim, not solely those identified and put forward by the contractor. Such considerations would be all the more important where the employer is seeking to determine the contractor's employment by relying on an alleged failure to proceed diligently with the works.