![HT-2023-000415 - [2024] EWHC 1199 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png){kind=logo}
NEIL MOODY KC
NEIL MOODY KC:
I. Introduction
This Part 8 claim concerns the meaning and effect of a Tomlin order by which the parties settled adjudication enforcement proceedings. It also raises the question as to whether a proposed referral to a second adjudication is an impermissible referral of the same or substantially the same dispute.
Timothy Sampson appeared for the Claimant and Harry East for the Defendant. I am grateful to them both for their helpful and well-focused submissions.
- 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