AMEC Capital Projects Ltd. v Whitefriars City Estates Ltd.

Paragraph 9(2) of an adjudication scheme, included to prevent inconsistent findings by different adjudicators on the same issue, does not apply where the earlier adjudicator’s decision has been held to be a nullity. Such a decision is treated as never having been made.

The judgment concerned an application made at the hearing fixed for handing down judgment in an appeal from the High Court Technology and Construction Court. New counsel for the respondent raised a point concerning paragraph 9(2) of the relevant adjudication scheme, although the point had not been raised below or during the appeal. The respondent sought to reopen the appeal so that further argument could be heard.

1. Application to adjourn refused. Lord Justice Chadwick concluded that the newly raised point had no substance and that there was no purpose in adjourning the appeal for further argument. Lord Justice Dyson agreed.
2. Paragraph 9(2) of the adjudication scheme was included to avoid the possibility of inconsistent findings by different adjudicators addressing the same issue.
3. That provision was not directed to a case in which the decision of the adjudicator at the first hearing had been held to be a nullity. Such a decision had to be treated as a decision which had never been made.
4. The Court therefore declined to reopen or adjourn the appeal to hear further submissions on the point.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2004] EWCA Civ 1535 , the court refused the respondent’s application to reopen and adjourn the appeal for further argument.
2. High Court Technology and Construction Court: The appeal was from a decision of His Honour Judge Toulmin CMG QC. No citation for that decision is stated in the judgment.