Cases - CIB Properties Ltd v Birse Construction
Record details
- Name
- CIB Properties Ltd v Birse Construction
- Date
- [2004]
- Citation
- EWHC 2365
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Adjudication - construction adjudication - error of fact - suitability for adjudication - dispute - whether a dispute has crystallised
- Summary
-
The court found that the test is whether the dispute has crystallised. Even after it has crystallised, parties may wish to have further discussions in order to resolve it. Whether or not a dispute has crystallised will depend on the facts in each case, including whether or not the parties are in continuing and genuine discussions in order to try to resolve the dispute.
The court found that in the 15 intervening weeks between the notification of the claim and the date of the referral to adjudication, there had been a proper opportunity for Birse to consider the claim and provide a constructive response, which may or may not have led to further discussions. Instead, Birse attempted to manoeuvre tactically so that it could make the claim that the dispute had not crystallised.
There was no question as to whether the dispute was too complicated for adjudication, but whether the adjudicator could reach a fair decision within the prescribed time limits. Considering that both parties had the opportunity to put forward their respective cases, the adjudicator's decision was binding. Both sides had, for a long time before the start of the adjudication, been engaged in tactical manoeuvres. Looking at the history it is impossible to conclude that Birse was ambushed by CIB.