Introduction
1.The claimant (“PTB”) seeks summary judgment for £314,242.18 plus interest against the defendant (“ROK”) in respect of sums held due to PTB in an adjudicator's decision dated 1 October 2008. ROK oppose enforcement of the adjudicator's decision on a number of grounds. 2.PTB was engaged by ROK to carry out work to kitchens and bathrooms in council-owned properties in Harlow, Essex as part of the Harlow Decent Homes project. There is a dispute as to the contractual relationship between PTB and ROK and, in particular, whether there was a contract in writing within the provisions of s.107 of the Housing (Grants) Construction Regeneration Act 1996 (“The 1996 Act”).
- 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