Crystallised dispute
47.Mr Lee submits that the matters which PTB sought to refer to adjudication were not the subject of a crystallised dispute even on the basis of the flexible approach which has now been adopted by the courts on that question. Mr Stansfield submits that the dispute referred to adjudication by the notice of adjudication dated 20 August 2008 had been referred to in the first notice of adjudication on 11 August 2008 and disputed. As set out 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