Specialist Insulation Ltd V. Pro-duct (fife) Limited
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Malcolm |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] CSOH 79 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 11 May 2012 |
| Date | 10 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | CA156/11 |
| OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2012] CSOH 79 | |
| CA156/11 | OPINION OF LORD MALCOM in the cause SPECIALIST INSULATION LTD Pursuer; against PRO-DUCT (FIFE) LTD Defender: ________________ |
Pursuer: G. M. Maciver, advocate; Burness LLP
Defender: G. L. MacColl, advocate; Francis Gill & Co
10 May 2012
[1] In this action the pursuer seeks to enforce an adjudicator's decision dated 30 August 2011. The adjudicator found that, in accordance with the terms of a sub-contract agreement, the sum of £85,389.46, plus any VAT properly chargeable, is payable by the defender to the pursuer. The defender has refused to make payment on the basis that the parties' contract did not provide for the dispute to be referred to adjudication. The defender asks the court to quash the decision on the ground that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction.
[2] The defender was a sub-contractor in relation to a project at Edgbaston Cricket Ground, Birmingham. The defender invited the pursuer to submit a quotation for the supply of ductwork. Having received the quotation the defender issued a purchase order dated 22 November 2010. Thereafter the pursuer supplied the ductwork to the defender. By July 2011 a dispute had emerged in relation to payments said to be due by the defender to the pursuer. The pursuer gave notice that an application was being made for the appointment of an adjudicator. Mr JD Smith was appointed as adjudicator by the RICS on 28 July 2011. Thereafter an adjudication process took place. Throughout that process the defender insisted that Mr Smith had no jurisdiction to act as adjudicator.
[3] That position was maintained at a debate. Mr McColl submitted that, in light of the subject matter of the parties' contract (being the supply of certain goods), the statutory adjudication provisions within part II of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) do not apply. Accordingly an adjudicator would only have jurisdiction in the event that there had been agreement between the parties that the dispute could be referred to adjudication. In Mr McColl's submission there was no such agreement between the parties, therefore the reference was ultra vires, did not confer any jurisdiction upon the purported adjudicator, and resulted in an unenforceable decision. For the pursuer Mr Maciver submitted that the parties' agreement did include an agreement to refer any dispute under the contract to adjudication. Other issues do arise, but in the first instance it is necessary to resolve the question as to the terms of the parties' contract.
The contract
[4] On 29 October 2010 the pursuer sent a quotation for the supply of ductwork in the sum of £216,819.40. The quotation stated that it was "subject to our standard terms and conditions of trading (available on request)." The pursuer's standard terms provide:
"1 The company accepts orders subject to these conditions of sale to the exclusion of any conditions of the buyer, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the company. These conditions shall prevail in the event of any inconsistency with any other terms"
"20 (v) Any dispute arising under or in connection with these conditions or the sale of the goods shall be referred to arbitration by a single arbitrator appointed by agreement or (in default) nominated on the application of either party by the President for the time being of The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in accordance with the rules of that Institute"
"(vi) The contract between the company and the buyer shall be governed by English Law. Uniform Laws on Internal Sales are hereby excluded. No action or proceedings of any nature shall be initiated against the company except in the English Courts."
[5] The pursuer's quotation was met by a purchase order issued by the defender.
Along with the purchase order, although not referred to in it, the defender forwarded a document headed "Pro-Duct (Fife) Ltd - Material Supply only Sub-contract Agreement". That document indicated that the agreement was between "the contractor", namely Pro-Duct (Fife) Ltd, and Spirolite Insulation Ltd, "the sub‑contractor". It specified that the contractor was carrying out works under a contract on a project at Edgbaston Cricket Ground and the contractor wished to engage the sub-contractor to carry out certain work ("the sub-contract works") on a "labour only basis". The price of works to be undertaken was £211,469.12 with a commencement date of 22 November 2010, and an anticipated completion date of 30 May 2011. Retention (if applicable) was to be five per cent of the value of the work carried out. There would be a defects liability period of 12 months from the date of practical completion of the sub‑contract works.
[6] This document was executed on behalf of the defender by Brian Dempster, its managing director. Immediately below this was the heading "Executed on behalf of the sub-contractor", and then space for the name, signature and date of signature on behalf of the sub-contractor. This document was never executed on behalf of the pursuer. Furthermore it is difficult to reconcile all of its terms with the purchase order, which relates to an order for the supply of movable goods, as opposed to an agreement to carry out sub-contract works on a labour only basis. Amongst other things it provided that the "sub‑contract works" were to be "in accordance with the following schedule and conditions". It appears that this was a reference to the other forwarded document headed "Conditions of Sub-contract Agreement". It is clear that these conditions were intended to relate to construction or engineering works, or something of that nature. Reference is made to the 1996 Act; a defects liability period; interim payments; deduction of retention amounts from the value of work carried out; failures to proceed regularly and diligently with the sub‑contract work, etc.
[7] Clause 16 of the conditions is an important provision so far as the present dispute is concerned. It provides:
"(a) Either party may refer such disputes as may arise under this contract to adjudication at any time.
(b) The adjudicator shall be a person appointed by an adjudicator nominating body.
(c) The adjudication provisions of the scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 or such other equivalent as is applicable within the jurisdiction are deemed to be incorporated into this agreement and the parties agree to abide by them."
Clause 17 provides "Unless otherwise agreed in the schedule, the law of Scotland shall be the law applicable to this agreement, and the parties shall submit to the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts."
Defender's submissions on the terms of the contract
[8] In support of his submission that the adjudication clause is not a term of the contract, Mr McColl noted that the document headed "Material Supply Only Sub-contract Agreement", which purports to incorporate the conditions, including the adjudication clause, had not been addressed to the pursuer, but rather to an entity called Spirolite Insulation Limited. Perhaps more importantly, while that document had been signed on behalf of the defender, it had not been signed on behalf of the pursuer. The pursuer quoted to provide goods to the defender, whereas the document relates to an engagement for "labour only." The pursuer's quotation was subject to the pursuer's terms and conditions, which exclude any conditions proffered by the defender (unless agreed in writing), and which are to prevail in the event of any inconsistency with any terms which the defender might seek to incorporate into the contract. The acceptance of the purchase order, which was demonstrated by the pursuer supplying the goods to the defender, was made on that basis. There is an inconsistency in the documents, in that clause 20(v) of the pursuer's standard terms provides that any dispute should be referred to arbitration, not to adjudication. The pursuer had not agreed to variation of its standard terms in writing. The pursuer rejected the mechanism which the defender put forward for acceptance of the defender's terms.
[9] For the pursuer Mr Maciver adopted the reasoning given by the adjudicator in paragraph 14 of his decision. This echoed his reasoning in a letter of 9 August 2011, in which he responded to the challenge to his jurisdiction. In that letter he said:
"While I do not have authority to decide my own jurisdiction, I am obliged to investigate the facts and form a view as to whether or not I have jurisdiction. In the event I form the view that I do not have jurisdiction, I must resign and take no further part in the reference. Having considered each parties' submissions, I have formed the view that I have jurisdiction and I will continue to act as adjudicator. Clause 16 of the responding party's 'Conditions of Sub-contract Agreement' is a contractual adjudication provision, which allows either party to refer a dispute under the contract to adjudication at any time and such an adjudication will be conducted under the procedure set out in the Scheme. This clause was put forward by the responding party in the full knowledge that the works were of a "supply only" nature and, as this is a contractual adjudication clause, there can be no reliance upon the provisions of the Act as to the fact that "supply only" contracts are not considered to be a 'construction contract.' My jurisdiction is therefore derived from the expressed terms of clause 16 of the Conditions."
The adjudicator was not faced with the same argument as presented by Mr McColl. It follows that his response is of little direct assistance. However it is clear that he derived his view on his own jurisdiction from an understanding that the adjudication clause in the defender's document headed "Conditions of Sub‑contract Agreement" was part of the contract.
[10] Mr Maciver submitted that the parties' contract should be analysed under the "normal battle of the forms...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan Sindall Construction And Infrastructure Limited Against Westcrowns Contracting Services Limited
...made at the time was sufficient. Reference was made to the Opinion of Lord Malcolm in Specialist Insulation Ltd v Pro-Duct (Fife) Ltd [2012] CSOH 79, [2012] BLR 342, [2012] SCLR 641, in particular at paras 32-36. It was also argued that, even if the specific issues raised before the court h......
-
Grafton Merchanting Gb Ltd Trading As Buildbase V. Sundial Properties (gilmerton) Limited
...to the pursuer, and a proof of that issue was not necessary. [9] I was referred to Specialist Insulation Ltd v Pro-duct (Fife) Ltd, [2012] CSOH 79, a case in which, unusually, each party argued that the other party's conditions applied. In that case, the pursuer's conditions, in its quotati......
-
Court Of Session Disapplies The 'Last Shot' Doctrine
...Scottish case of Specialist Insulation Ltd v Pro-Duct (Fife) Ltd [2012] CSOH 79 is one of the latest to consider contractual interpretation and provides a view on recent English judgements on the "battle of the forms". The Court of Session has found that the "last shot" doctrine is not alwa......