Allied London and Scottish Properties Plc v Riverbrae Construction Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 1999 |
| Date | 12 July 1999 |
| Court | Court of Session |
COURT OF SESSION Outer House
Before Lord Kingarth.
Scots law - construction contract - adjudicator ordering immediate payment - not bound to consider alternative methods
Where an adjudication under section 108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 was conducted by way of written and oral submissions by legal representatives, the adjudicator when ordering payment is not bound to consider alternatives to immediate payment in the absence of submissions on the matter.
Lord Kingarth, sitting in the Outer House of the Court of Session, so held dismissing a petition brought by Allied London and Scottish Properties plc seeking judicial review of decisions of an adjudicator, John Despenser Spencely. The petition was also served on Riverbrae Construction Ltd as having an interest and they entered the process as respondents.
Mr Neil Davidson, QC, for the petitioners; Mr Paul Cullen, QC, for the respondents.
LORD KINGARTH said that the respondents had contracted to execute works for the petitioners in a number of different construction contracts.
They had made claims for payment under four of the contracts. The claims had been disputed. The respondents had given notice of their intention to refer the disputes for adjudication.
In each of the adjudications the adjudicator had ordered the petitioners to pay certain sums to the respondents within 14 days. The petitioners had sought that those decisions be set aside.
Before the adjudicator, the petitioners had indicated that the respondents had failed to fulfil contractual obligations incumbent upon them in respect of a number of projects not subject to the adjudication process.
They had argued that the adjudicator should have ordered that the petitioners be allowed to place any monies due to the respondents on deposit receipt in the joint names of the parties, pending resolution of all disputes between them.
The adjudicator had decided that he had no power under the Act, the Scheme for Construction Contracts (Scotland) Regulations (SI 1998 No 687), or the contract to direct that sums awarded to the applicant should have been placed on deposit in the joint names of the parties. The petitioners had argued that the adjudicator had failed properly to apply his mind, as required by the scheme to the question of whether he should have ordered peremptory payment.
Reference...
To continue reading
Request your trial