News

Articles from the Silver Shemmings Ash Team on contractual matters, recent case law changes and items of interest in the construction and property world

A further analysis of Hitachi v Sisk: is serial adjudication like lingchi?

May 2, 2019 | Silver Shemmings

This case concerned the analysis of whether the eight dispute brought via adjudication was “the same, or substantially the same” as the second, so as to be caught by paragraph 9(2) of The Scheme.

Mr Pontin, the adjudicator in both cases, observed at the outset of A8 and in response to the jurisdictional challenge raised by Hitachi:

“In the Second Adjudication I decided that Event 1176 was a Variation that required valuation. Thus I cannot adjudicate now on whether Event 1176 was or was not a Variation as that has been decided.

In addition I decided that for the purposes of Application 6 that Sisk had not complied with the provisions of clause 30.1 and stated that  ‘I do not have sufficient details to value the works and hence for the purposes of Payment Notice 6 my value is £nil.’ The fact that ‘£nil’ was entered onto my spreadsheet does not alter the meaning of the words used in the body of my Decision. I could not conclude a value for Event 1176 in that Notice and as a fact I did not decide a value for event 1176.”

Stuart-Smith J agreed, and applied the following two stage test to arrive at the same result:

  • What did the adjudicator in the second adjudication decide about event 1176?
  • Is the dispute about event 1176 referred to the eighth adjudicator the same or substantially the same as the dispute decided by the second adjudicator?


Drop us a message

You're in the right place! Just drop us a message. How can we help?

 Email us now

Or see contact page
Validation error occured. Please enter the fields and submit it again.
Thank You ! Your email has been delivered.

Silver Shemmings Ash

 

You are very welcome to this firm’s seminars and training sessions and to read the firm’s articles and publications.

At seminars and training sessions, you are welcome to take away the materials provided. However, please note that attendance and receipt of any materials during the course of a seminar or training session shall not constitute legal advice and no lawyer-client relationship is created by attendance or receipt of any information, be it in printed form, electronic or any other medium, including verbal.

No answer to a question at a seminar or training session constitutes legal advice and no lawyer-client relationship is created between any person, including an individual or company asking the question and the person answering it. Where appropriate, you should consult a lawyer for legal advice and this firm would be happy to assist in that regard.

You should not disclose confidential information to a member of this firm unless you are already a client of this firm and have been provided with a letter of engagement. We do not owe you a duty of confidentiality until you have signed a letter of engagement with this firm.