David and Teresa Bothma (in partnership) t/a DAB Builders v Mayhaven Healthcare Limited
Case reference:
[2006] EWHC 2601 (QB)
Thursday, 16 November 2006
Key terms: Enforcement – cross application – jurisdictional challenge – application for a stay – more than one dispute.
The contractor was engaged under a JCT Intermediate Form of Contract 1998 Edition to carry out alterations and an enlargement to a nursing home. The contract sum was £488,695.38.
There was some confusion about the completion date in the contract. The year appeared to be incorrect, and the date of 31 March had also been overwritten at some point with 31 December. The contractor applied for an extension of time and the Contract Administrator indicated that he would give an extension of time for two months, confirming then an extension of time of 24 days and later an extension of time of 74 days. The date from which the extension should run was not confirmed and so the confusion about the completion date remained.
Application 9 was made by the contractor in the sum of £444,531.74. The contract administrator was replaced and the new administrator certified the sum of £417,201.
A Notice of Adjudication referred a dispute relating to the date for completion of the contract, the scope of the architect’s instructions, the validity of the notice of non completion and the amount of payment in respect of Application No 9.
The Adjudicator issued his decision dealing with all of these matters. The respondent reserved its position in relatively wide terms, and then sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator on the basis that there was more than one dispute. The argument was that none of the figures claimed by the contractor in Application No 9 were affected by the completion date or the extension of time. Therefore the extension of time issue was, according to the respondent an entirely separate dispute.
HHJ Havelock–Allan QC held that there were two separate disputes and as a result the Adjudicator acted without jurisdiction. The decision was therefore not enforced.
[Many thanks to Corbett Haselgrove Spurin and Paul Newman for providing copies of this judgement]
There was some confusion about the completion date in the contract. The year appeared to be incorrect, and the date of 31 March had also been overwritten at some point with 31 December. The contractor applied for an extension of time and the Contract Administrator indicated that he would give an extension of time for two months, confirming then an extension of time of 24 days and later an extension of time of 74 days. The date from which the extension should run was not confirmed and so the confusion about the completion date remained.
Application 9 was made by the contractor in the sum of £444,531.74. The contract administrator was replaced and the new administrator certified the sum of £417,201.
A Notice of Adjudication referred a dispute relating to the date for completion of the contract, the scope of the architect’s instructions, the validity of the notice of non completion and the amount of payment in respect of Application No 9.
The Adjudicator issued his decision dealing with all of these matters. The respondent reserved its position in relatively wide terms, and then sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator on the basis that there was more than one dispute. The argument was that none of the figures claimed by the contractor in Application No 9 were affected by the completion date or the extension of time. Therefore the extension of time issue was, according to the respondent an entirely separate dispute.
HHJ Havelock–Allan QC held that there were two separate disputes and as a result the Adjudicator acted without jurisdiction. The decision was therefore not enforced.
[Many thanks to Corbett Haselgrove Spurin and Paul Newman for providing copies of this judgement]