Cases - Whiteways Contractors (Sussex) Ltd v Impresa Castelli Construction Ltd
Record details
- Name
- Whiteways Contractors (Sussex) Ltd v Impresa Castelli Construction Ltd
- Date
- (2000)
- Citation
- 75 Con. L.R. 92
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Adjudication - application for summary judgment - enforcement - jurisdiction - referral - removal of jurisdiction
- Summary
-
Whiteways were plastering subcontractors engaged by Impresa in connection with the construction of a hotel in London. Disputes arose, which were referred to adjudication. The adjudicator ordered that Impresa pay Whiteways the sum of £95,383.50 including VAT. These proceedings were brought by Whiteways and an application for summary judgment was made.
Impresa resisted enforcement on the basis that the adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction by considering matters in the referral that were not referred to in the notice of adjudication.
On 3 March 2000, and in response to a referral served on 25 February 2000, Impresa issued the adjudicator with a document entitled 'Submission by Impresa Castelli Construction UK Limited on the matter of Jurisdiction'. The last paragraph of the covering letter read:
'We invite you to decide on this issue as a matter of urgency as our response to Whiteways' Notice of Referral will depend on your decision. Our client does not wish to incur costs on matters which, in our view, fall outside the jurisdiction of the Adjudication.'
On the same day, the adjudicator invited Whiteways' solicitors to respond to the submission, which they did. The adjudicator subsequently, on 7 March 2000, wrote to the parties stating:
'... further to the submissions received from the parties I now attach my determination on the matter of my jurisdiction in this adjudication'.
The adjudicator decided that he did have jurisdiction to consider the matter referred (with one exception) and proceeded with the adjudication.
On 16 March 2000 the solicitors to the defendants served their response to the claimants' referral document. In that response the defendants repeated their objections to the jurisdiction and stated that the response was made without prejudice to that objection and reserved the right to raise the matter of jurisdiction in any future proceedings concerning this adjudication.
The judge concluded that the parties had given the adjudicator ad hoc jurisdiction to determine his own jurisdiction by their letters on or about 3 March 2000, and like the remainder of his decision his determination on his jurisdiction is binding on the parties until the dispute with difference is finally determined. The court saw no reason to differ from the finding of the adjudicator on jurisdiction, but in any event stated that the court is not a court of appeal from the adjudicator and therefore was not prepared to rehearse the adjudicator's reasons for making his decision on jurisdiction.
Having given the adjudicator ad hoc jurisdiction to determine his own jurisdiction and the adjudicator having acted on that, neither of the parties could unilaterally take that jurisdiction away.