M Davenport Builders Limited v Greer & Anor  EWHC 318 (TCC)
Lobo v Corich  EWHC 1438 (TCC)
The bury-your-head-in-the-sand approach to defending a claim in adjudication
This case concerns the service of documents. In brief, Corich, the contractor, “buried its head in the sand” and took no part in the adjudication, neither acknowledging receipt of any documents served on it or reserving its position in any way. Unsurprisingly, Corich lost the adjudication but worse was to follow as Lobo applied for summary judgement in the TCC to enforce the adjudicator’s decision and, of course, it was granted. The case ended up in the TCC. Corich’s defence that it was unaware of the adjudication proceedings because it had not received notices and therefore been subject to procedural unfairness or breach of natural justice, failed. In fact, Lobo had served the notices by several different methods. The judge said that Corich had only itself to blame for, “…protracted, pervasive, serious and inexplicable failure to behave with the prudence of a normally intelligent and educated businessman”.
Remember The Ikarian Reefer  2 Lloyd’s Rep.68 ?
Sometimes the old ones are the best.
2. An expert should provide independent assistance to the court
3. An expert should state the facts or assumptions upon which his/her opinion is based.
4. An expert should make it clear when a particular question falls outside his/her expertise.
5. If an expert’s opinion is not properly researched he/she should state so.
6. If an expert changes his/her mind it should be communicated to the court without delay 7. All photographs, plans, calculations or similar documents should be provided to the opposite party with exchange reports.
Grove Developments Limited -v- S&T (UK) Limited
The parties entered into a JCT contract for the design and build of a new hotel in London. S&T was a construction company that submitted an interim payment application in the sum of £14M and in response Grove issued a payment notice which despite being out-of-time satisfied the criteria for the basis of calculation. Grove subsequently issued a pay less notice within the permitted time but failed to attach the basis of calculation which it had hitherto attached to the payment notice.
On a Part 8 application, Coulson J decided that Grove had complied with the requirement to “specify the basis of the calculation” and in that respect the pay less notice was compliant.