Cases - Watkin Jones & Son Ltd v Lidl UK GmbH
Record details
- Name
- Watkin Jones & Son Ltd v Lidl UK GmbH
- Date
- [2001]; [2001]
- Citation
- Adj.L.R. 12/21; Adj.L.R. 12/27
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Adjudication - JCT Contract - jurisdiction - adjudicator - earlier adjudication
- Summary
-
Watkin Jones were a contractor who had been appointed by Lidl pursuant to the JCT 1998 Standard Form of Building Contract with Contractor's Design.
This contract included a provision to the effect that the valuation applied for by the contractor must be a proper gross valuation for the purposes of interim payment as provided by clause 30.2A. The employer may then question it within five days by a notice as provided by clause 30.3.3. If that is done, the employer is only obliged to pay the amount which it does not question and which then becomes the amount due. The employer also has a further right, as provided by clause 30.3.4, within five days to specify an amount proposed to be withheld or deducted from the amount due, that is, the amount which the employer considers is the due amount under clause 30.3.3. Clause 30.3.5 says that where the employer does not give any notice pursuant to clause 30.3.3, the employer shall pay the contractor the sum included in the application for an interim payment.
Watkin Jones issued an application for interim payment in respect of which Lidl failed to issue a clause 30.3.3 notice. Watkin Jones therefore sought to be paid the sum applied for and in the first adjudication the adjudicator decided in favour of Watkin Jones's application.
Lidl then promptly commenced a second adjudication to determine the properly calculated sum which ought to have been applied for.
Watkin Jones then commenced court proceedings by way of a Part 8 claim for a declaration that the second adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter referred. They argued that in the absence of a clause 30.3.3 notice it is not open to either party to go back over the sum applied for. The judge found these submissions to be correct and therefore gave the declaration sought, namely that the second adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to decide on the matter referred - there was no dispute.