William Verry Ltd v North West London Communal Mikvah
William Verry Ltd v North West London Communal Mikvah
- 2004
- Building Law Reports [2004] BLR 308-322(15) .
[2004] EWHC 1300 (TCC), 11 June 2004. Application by claimant (W) for summary judgment to enforce adjudicator's decision for a sum of money to be paid by defendant (N) for the construction of a Mikvah ( a Jewish ritual bath). JCT 1998 Private with Quantities was used. The first two adjudications had been successfully enforced. Application arises out of third application dated and issued on 23 January 2004 directing N to pay a sum of money plus interest. N declined to pay on three jurisdictional grounds: the adjudicator's decision was invalid because the referral notice was issued one day too late; there was no relevant dispute in existence when W served its purported notice of adjudication; and the adjudicator failed to consider a critical issue which had been referred to him. The commentary section outlines five key points for consideration. Firstly, Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s108(2)(b) re compliance with notice of referral. Secondly, consideration of the dispute referred to adjudication. Thirdly, had the adjudicator erred. Fourthly, having considered that the adjudicator had erred, consideration had to be given as to whether the errors were jurisdictional or intra-jurisdiction. Finally N had not been given a fair hearing as the adjudicator had not considered their contentions on a core issue. Summary judgment in favour of W granted. Directed that judgment should not be drawn up for six weeks to give defendant N opportunity to make application for new adjudication.
WILLIAM VERRY LTD V NORTH WEST LONDON COMMUNAL MIKVAH
HOUSING GRANTS CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996 S108(2)(B)
ADJUDICATION
JCT 1998 PRIVATE WITH QUANTITIES
[2004] EWHC 1300 (TCC), 11 June 2004. Application by claimant (W) for summary judgment to enforce adjudicator's decision for a sum of money to be paid by defendant (N) for the construction of a Mikvah ( a Jewish ritual bath). JCT 1998 Private with Quantities was used. The first two adjudications had been successfully enforced. Application arises out of third application dated and issued on 23 January 2004 directing N to pay a sum of money plus interest. N declined to pay on three jurisdictional grounds: the adjudicator's decision was invalid because the referral notice was issued one day too late; there was no relevant dispute in existence when W served its purported notice of adjudication; and the adjudicator failed to consider a critical issue which had been referred to him. The commentary section outlines five key points for consideration. Firstly, Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s108(2)(b) re compliance with notice of referral. Secondly, consideration of the dispute referred to adjudication. Thirdly, had the adjudicator erred. Fourthly, having considered that the adjudicator had erred, consideration had to be given as to whether the errors were jurisdictional or intra-jurisdiction. Finally N had not been given a fair hearing as the adjudicator had not considered their contentions on a core issue. Summary judgment in favour of W granted. Directed that judgment should not be drawn up for six weeks to give defendant N opportunity to make application for new adjudication.
WILLIAM VERRY LTD V NORTH WEST LONDON COMMUNAL MIKVAH
HOUSING GRANTS CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996 S108(2)(B)
ADJUDICATION
JCT 1998 PRIVATE WITH QUANTITIES