Cases - Skanska Construction UK Ltd v The ERDC Group Ltd and John Hunter

Record details

Name

Skanska Construction UK Ltd v The ERDC Group Ltd and John Hunter

Date

[2002]

Citation

ScotCS 307

Keywords

Construction contracts - adjudication - adjudicator's jurisdiction - substantially same dispute -enforcement - second adjudication - whether substantially the same dispute had been referred to a second adjudication

Summary

ERDC were appointed as a subcontractor to Skanska for the completion of various landscaping works. In December 2001 an adjudication took place in relation to an interim valuation and specifically in relation to ERDC's entitlement to loss and expense in the sum of £389,500.59. In that adjudication the adjudicator decided that Skanska were liable to pay nothing, on the basis that there was insufficient information, insufficient specification and insufficient evidence.

In September 2002 ERDC commenced a second adjudication in relation to their entitlement pursuant to the final account and in particular in relation to ERDC's entitlement to loss and expense in the sum of £372,978.35.

Skanska brought this application before the court during the currency of the second adjudication on the basis that the matter before the second adjudicator was substantially the same as the disputes that had been referred to and decided by the first adjudicator.

ERDC responded that the fact that this second referral arose pursuant to the final account was enough to make it a different dispute from that referred pursuant to an interim application. Further, ERDC asserted that this second referral contained a considerable amount of additional information that had not been available to the adjudicator in the first adjudication and that also made this a different dispute from the one previously referred.

The court concluded that the referral to the second adjudicator was not substantially the same as the dispute referred to the first adjudicator. A different stage in the contract had been reached; different contractual provisions applied; considerably more information may be available by the date of issue of the final account; and different considerations and perspectives may apply. The fundamental nature and parameters of the disputes are different.