Cases - Benfield Construction Ltd v Trudson (Hatton) Ltd

Record details

Name
Benfield Construction Ltd v Trudson (Hatton) Ltd
Date
[2008]
Citation
EWHC 2333 (TCC)
Keywords
Same question cannot be referred to adjudication twice even if it was referred separately under different contractual provisions
Summary

The same question (in this case the question of when practical completion had been achieved) cannot be referred to adjudication twice even if, as in this case, it was referred separately under 2 different contractual provisions. The judge summarised the key principles as follows:

'(a) The parties are bound by the decision of an adjudicator on a dispute or difference until it is finally determined by court or arbitration proceedings or by an agreement made subsequently by the parties.

(b) The parties cannot seek a further decision by an adjudicator on a dispute or difference if that dispute or difference has already been the subject of a decision by an adjudicator.

(c) The extent to which a decision or a dispute is binding will depend on an analysis of the terms, scope and extent of the dispute or difference referred to adjudication and the terms, scope and extent of the decision made by the adjudicator. In order to do this the approach has to be to ask whether the dispute or difference is the same or substantially the same as the relevant dispute or difference and whether the adjudicator has decided a dispute or difference which is the same or fundamentally the same as the relevant dispute or difference.

(e) The approach must involve not only the same but also substantially the same dispute or difference. This is because disputes or differences encompass a wide range of factual and legal issues. If there had to be complete identity of factual and legal issues then the ability to readjudicate what was in substance the same dispute or difference would deprive clause 39A.7.1 of its intended purpose.

(f) Whether one dispute is substantially the same as another dispute is a question of fact and degree.'