Cases - Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Contractors Ltd

Record details

Name

Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Contractors Ltd

Date

[2006]; (2007); (2007)

Citation

EWCA Civ 1737; BLR 67; 114 Con LR 81; CILL 2425

Legislation

• Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
• Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998

Keywords

Construction contracts - adjudication - defences - delay - extension of time - liquidated damages - subsequent adjudication - whether adjudicator bound by previous decision - whether party entitled to defend on basis rejected by prior adjudication - summary judgment - enforcement - Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, section 108 - Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998, paragraphs 9 and 23

Summary

In this case Vascroft brought an adjudication for an extension of time which was only partly successful. In consequence Quietfield commenced an adjudication claiming liquidated damages for the balance of the delay period. Vascroft defended this subsequent adjudication with a re-defined claim for an extension of time, claiming an extension of time for the entire period.

The Adjudicator decided that he was bound by his own previous decision and therefore declined to consider Vascroft's defence.

Vascroft refused to pay the liquidated damages and Quietfield brought these proceedings by way of enforcement.

In considering the matter Mr Justice Jackson stated a number of principles to be considered is such matters. These are as follows:

(1) Where the contract permits the contractor to make successive applications for extension of time on different grounds, either party, if dissatisfied with the decisions made, can refer those matters to successive adjudications. In each case the difference between the contentions of the aggrieved party and the decision of the architect or contract administrator will constitute the 'dispute' within the meaning of section 108 of the 1996 Act.

(2) If the contractor makes successive applications for extension of time on the same grounds, the architect or contract administrator will, no doubt, reiterate his original decision. The aggrieved party cannot refer this matter to successive adjudications. He is debarred from doing so by paragraphs 9 and 23 of the Scheme and section 108(3) of the 1996 Act.

(3) Subject to paragraph (4) below, where the contractor is resisting a claim for liquidated and ascertained damages in respect of delay, pursued in adjudication proceedings, the contractor may rely by way of defence upon his entitlement to an extension of time.

(4) However, the contractor cannot rely by way of defence in adjudication proceedings upon an alleged entitlement to extension of time which has been considered and rejected in a previous adjudication.