Shimizu Europe v. Automajor
[2002] BLR 113 at paragraph 29, ROK can no longer seek to contend that the decision is not binding. 19.Mr Jonathan Lee, who appears on behalf of ROK, submits that ROK has made no election which would preclude it from being able to challenge the decision. He relies on the reservation of rights in the letter sent to Mr Brooker on 22 October 2008, as well as the general reservation made in paragraph 1.2 of the Response. He also submits that the payment of the Adjudicator's fees was made by mistake and that payment of those fees cannot be said to be taking a benefit from the decision. 20.I now consider those submissions. The law on election which, Mr Stansfield submits, prevents a party from “approbating and reprobating” or relying on and challenging the decision of an adjudicator is of some antiquity. 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