![HT-2023-000415 - [2024] EWHC 1199 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
VII. Conclusion and Disposal
Accordingly I conclude that:
Paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Tomlin Order does not prevent Hylgar referring to a second adjudication the claims advanced in its solicitor’s letter dated 31st August 2023;
If the claims advanced in Hylgar’s solicitor’s letter of 31st August 2023 are referred to adjudication, that will not entail the adjudicator deciding the same of substantially the same dispute as was decided by Mr Smith.
I therefore decline to make the declarations sought and I dismiss these proceedings.
I invite the parties to agree an Order giving effect to this Judgment, and any consequential matters including costs. This should be done within 7 days of hand-down. If agreement cannot be reached, then short written submissions (limited to 3 sides) should be exchanged. I will then decide any disputed matters on the papers or, if either party requests it, I will list the matter for a hearing.
- Heading
- NEIL MOODY KC
- The Facts
- These proceedings
- The Parties’ Arguments in Outline
- Is Hylgar’s new claim barred by paragraph 4 of the Tomlin Order Schedule? The approach to construction
- “these proceedings”
- “arising from or in connection with”
- Conclusion
- Estoppel
- Is the proposed second referral an impermissible attempt to refer the same dispute?
- Conclusions