Can ROK contend that the decision is not binding?
18.Mr Piers Stansfield, who appears on behalf of PTB, submits that by taking the benefit of the Adjudicator’s decision and using it to persuade the second adjudicator to resign, ROK has elected to take the benefit of the decision and cannot now assert that it is not valid and binding. He also relies on the fact that ROK has now paid the adjudicator's fees and says that, by analogy with the decision in
- Introduction
- The adjudication
- These proceedings
- Can ROK contend that the decision is not binding?
- Shimizu Europe v. Automajor
- Codrington v. Codrington
- Banque des Marchands v. Kindersley
- Ex parte Roberston
- Evans v. Bartlam
- Lissenden v. CAV Bosch Limited
- Shimizu Europe v. Automajor
- Shimizu
- Contract in writing
- RJT Consulting Engineers v. DM Engineering
- Hart v. Fidler
- Work outside the contract
- Bothma v. Mayhaven
- Crystallised dispute
- Collins Construction Limited v. Baltic Quay Management (1994) Limited
- AMEC Civil Engineering Limited v. The Secretary of State for Transport
- Carillion v. Devonport
- Paragraph 7(2) of Part I of the Scheme
- The wrong question
- Nikko Hotels v. MEPC
- Bouygues v. Dahl-Jensen
- Summary