Apollo Engineering v James Scott Limited
Apollo Engineering v James Scott Limited [electronic resource]
- 2008
[2008] CSOH 39, 7 March 2008. A, the petitioner, was subcontractor to the respondent, J, and was responsible for the installation of pipework on a floating jetty. Following disputes, the two parties went to arbitration in 2005. In September 2006, following a lengthy amendment to A's case, the arbiter advised that A would be responsible for the costs of the amendment procedure. The arbiter also allowed the appointment of senior counsel and skilled witnesses on behalf of J, the cost of which was to be met by A, and in May 2007 issued a final draft award indicating that most of A's case would be dismissed due to lack of relevancy. A applied for judicial review. Held: petition dismissed. The award of expenses is incidental to an arbiter's award, and does not form part of the award; an arbiter does have an implied power to grant part awards; and an arbiter is within his rights to dismiss part of a claimant's case due to lack of relevancy: it does not come within the remit of a judicial review to consider the merits of such a decision.
ROBERT BROWN AND SON LTD V ASSOCIATED FIRECLAY COMPANIES LTD
APC LTD V AMEY CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS
FARRANS (CONSTRUCTION) LTD V DUNFERMLINE DISTRICT COUNCIL
GRAMPIAN REGIONAL COUNCIL V JOHN G MCGREGOR (CONTRACTORS) LTD
POLLICH V HEATLEY
TAYLOR WOODROW CONSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND) LTD V SEARS INVESTMENT TRUST LTD
LYLE V FALCONER
APOLLO ENGINEERING V JAMES SCOTT LTD
Scotland--1999-
[2008] CSOH 39, 7 March 2008. A, the petitioner, was subcontractor to the respondent, J, and was responsible for the installation of pipework on a floating jetty. Following disputes, the two parties went to arbitration in 2005. In September 2006, following a lengthy amendment to A's case, the arbiter advised that A would be responsible for the costs of the amendment procedure. The arbiter also allowed the appointment of senior counsel and skilled witnesses on behalf of J, the cost of which was to be met by A, and in May 2007 issued a final draft award indicating that most of A's case would be dismissed due to lack of relevancy. A applied for judicial review. Held: petition dismissed. The award of expenses is incidental to an arbiter's award, and does not form part of the award; an arbiter does have an implied power to grant part awards; and an arbiter is within his rights to dismiss part of a claimant's case due to lack of relevancy: it does not come within the remit of a judicial review to consider the merits of such a decision.
ROBERT BROWN AND SON LTD V ASSOCIATED FIRECLAY COMPANIES LTD
APC LTD V AMEY CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS
FARRANS (CONSTRUCTION) LTD V DUNFERMLINE DISTRICT COUNCIL
GRAMPIAN REGIONAL COUNCIL V JOHN G MCGREGOR (CONTRACTORS) LTD
POLLICH V HEATLEY
TAYLOR WOODROW CONSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND) LTD V SEARS INVESTMENT TRUST LTD
LYLE V FALCONER
APOLLO ENGINEERING V JAMES SCOTT LTD
Scotland--1999-