Cases - Workplace Technologies plc v E Squared Ltd and Mr J L Riches
Record details
- Name
- Workplace Technologies plc v E Squared Ltd and Mr J L Riches
- Date
- [2000]
- Citation
- CILL 1607
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Construction contracts - agreement - final conclusion of agreement - declarations - injunction - court's jurisdiction - void referral to adjudication - whether contract concluded after 1 May 1998 - whether parties were required to comply with the adjudication provisions of section 108 - whether the court had power to grant an injunction to restrain a void referral to adjudication - Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, section 108
- Summary
-
This case concerned the principal question of whether or not the construction contract was made before or after the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 came into force - 1 May 1998. E Squared sought to refer the dispute that had arisen under the contract to adjudication.
Workplace Technologies sought a declaration to the effect that the contract came into force before 1 May 1998; a declaration as to the terms of the contract, a declaration that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction; and an injunction to prevent the referring party from continuing with the adjudication. The judge concluded on the facts of this case that he could not give the declarations sought. This case involved a continuum of negotiations with each party making various proposals and counter-proposals from late 1997 to June 1998.
The judge concluded that following the proposal to use the Gold Form on 20 May 1998 it was significant that there was no suggestion that any other amendment to the form, other than the filling in of the blanks, seemed to have been contemplated. This was evidenced by a letter dated 5 June 1998, which accepted that obligation without qualification or rider. The judge was therefore satisfied that it was not until, at the earliest, 20 May, but certainly by 5 June that the contract between the parties was ultimately concluded.
The judge also concluded that he was not persuaded that there is power to grant an injunction to restrain a party initiating a void reference and pursuing proceedings that themselves are void and that may give rise to a void, and thus an unenforceable, adjudication decision. Doubtless the initiation of such proceedings may be conceived to be a source of harassment, pressure or needless expense.