Cases - William Verry (Glazing Systems) Ltd v Furlong Homes Ltd
Record details
- Name
- William Verry (Glazing Systems) Ltd v Furlong Homes Ltd
- Date
- [2005]
- Citation
- EWHC 138 (TCC)
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Construction contracts - adjudication - dispute - adjudicator's jurisdiction - responses - enforcement - final account - whether the submission of further particulars in a response amounted to a new claim - whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to consider the further particulars
- Summary
-
Furlong (the employer) commenced adjudication proceedings against William Verry (the contractor) as to William Verry's entitlement to an extension of time and as to the value of the final account.
William Verry had been making various unparticularised claims in this regard and Furlong no doubt wished to conclude these matters.
William Verry sought to submit particulars relating to their entitlement to an extension of time and loss and expense during the course of the adjudication, to which Furlong objected on the basis that these new particulars were not the basis of the dispute that had been referred to the adjudicator. Notwithstanding these arguments from Furlong, the adjudicator admitted the new information and made his decision accordingly.
William Verry sought to enforce the decision of the adjudicator and Furlong resisted on the basis that the adjudicator had erred in admitting and taking into account the fresh evidence submitted by William Verry during the course of the adjudication.
The judge found in favour of William Verry on the following 2 grounds:
- The judge found that the new particulars submitted on behalf of William Verry did not amount to a new claim, but were simply a fuller explanation of the claim already made.
- The judge referred to the adjudication as a 'kitchen sink' final account adjudication in which there was no express limitation or qualification on the range of matters for decision. The judge found further support for this conclusion in the fact that the adjudicator had been asked to decide what extension of time the contractor is entitled to. Therefore, the judge found that even if the new particulars submitted by William Verry had amounted to a new claim, they would still have been admissible by the adjudicator to answer the question referred.
It should also be noted that in this case it was the responding party that sought to admit the new information.