Urang Commercial Ltd v Century Investments Ltd and Eclipse Hotels (Luton) Ltd

Posted on 17/06/2011 · Posted in Adjudication

Enforcement of adjudicators’ decisions even where they have made a mistake

The Claimant was involved in disputes with 2 separate Defendants and had entered into the process of adjudication with both. The Claimant was successful at adjudication and the Defendants were directed to pay to the Claimant the monies it had claimed. The Defendants did not pay as instructed.

They claimed that the adjudicator had made a mistake when considering their counter-claims and the service of certain notices, and that he had consequently come to the wrong final decision.

The Court accepted that the adjudicator had made a mistake in its decision-making. However, it stated that an adjudicator’s decision would be enforced even where the adjudicator had made a mistake unless one of the specific exceptions applied e.g.  where the adjudicator has acted outside of his jurisdiction or where he has acted in breach of natural justice. On the facts the submission that the Defendants’ argument went to jurisdiction was rejected. Where an adjudicator asks the correct questions, a defendant could not raise the fact that that the adjudicator answered questions wrongly as a defence.

Link: Urang Commercial Ltd v Century Investments Ltd and Eclipse Hotels (Luton) Ltd [2011] EWHC 1561 (TCC)

Interested in dispute resolution services?


Disclaimer: The above case summary is derived from publicly available information and is not intended to be anything more than a statement of the author’s views on the salient factors of the case. It is not intended and should not be understood to be legal advice of any sort. All views are solely those of the author and no use of the summary should be made without statements being checked against the source of information. Expert Evidence Limited takes no responsibility for the views expressed. The copyright of the summary is owned by Expert Evidence Limited but may be used with written permission which may be forthcoming on application through the contact us page. This news item is not intended to imply or suggest that Expert Evidence Limited was involved in the case, only that it is considered an interesting legal development.