ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
( HIS HONOUR JUDGE TOULMIN CMG QC )
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK
LORD JUSTICE DYSON
AMEC CAPITAL PROJECTS LTD
A/Claimant
-v-
WHITEFRIARS CITY ESTATES LTD
Respondent/Defendant
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR STEPHEN FURST QC (instructed by Messrs Masons) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR DAVID THOMAS QC (instructed by Messrs Kingsley Napley) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Thursday, 28 October 2004
1. LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK: At this hearing, fixed for the purpose of handing down the judgments in this matter, counsel instructed on behalf of the respondent - who was not the counsel who appeared on the appeal nor below - has drawn our attention to a point which was not raised either below or on this appeal. The point is said to arise out of paragraph 9(2) of the adjudication scheme relevant in this case. Counsel has invited us to re-open the appeal for the purpose of hearing further argument on that point.
2. We have considered his written submissions and the oral submissions that he has made to us this morning.
3. In my view there is nothing in the point. Paragraph 9(2) has been included in the scheme so as to avoid the possibility of inconsistent findings by different adjudicators addressing the same issue. The paragraph is not directed to a case where the decision of the adjudicator in the first hearing has been held to be a nullity; and so must be treated as a decision which has never been made. I would not myself adjourn this appeal for further hearing. I can see no purpose in doing so.
4. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: I agree.
(Application to adjourn refused).