RG Carter Limited -v- Edmund Nuttall Limited (No 2)
Thursday, 18 April 2002
Key terms: CPR Part 8 - order that appointment of adjudicator be revoked - DOM/1
This is a further case concerning the ongoing situation between Carter and Nuttall. It arises from the fifth adjudication, which according to HHJ Bowsher QC "relates to some very strange circumstances". The action was brought under CPR Part 8, claiming relief for an order that the appointment of an adjudicator be revoked. A series of adjudications culminated with a judgement on 21st March 2002 given by HHJ Seymour QC. On the same day RG Carter applied to the President of the RICS for the appointment of an adjudicator in respect of a fifth adjudication, specifically asking that the adjudicator should not be Mr David Richards. Regardless of the request, the RICS appointed Mr David Richards. Carter sought to attack the validity of that appointment.
They raised two main issues. First, that the adjudicator appeared to have pre-judged the matter before it had been referred to him. Second, he had said that he was willing to proceed to make a decision without the matter having been properly referred to him.
HHJ Bowsher QC refused to grant a declaration. He did not consider that he had jurisdiction to replace an adjudicator, and further did not consider that the complaints warranted replacement in any event. In respect of the second point, HHJ Bowsher QC could not see how an adjudicator could make a decision without a complete referral. In this regard he compared it to a judge attempting to try an action on the basis of a writ or claim form without having a Statement of Claim or a Defence.
They raised two main issues. First, that the adjudicator appeared to have pre-judged the matter before it had been referred to him. Second, he had said that he was willing to proceed to make a decision without the matter having been properly referred to him.
HHJ Bowsher QC refused to grant a declaration. He did not consider that he had jurisdiction to replace an adjudicator, and further did not consider that the complaints warranted replacement in any event. In respect of the second point, HHJ Bowsher QC could not see how an adjudicator could make a decision without a complete referral. In this regard he compared it to a judge attempting to try an action on the basis of a writ or claim form without having a Statement of Claim or a Defence.