Getting serious on serial disputes

Tony bingham 2017 bw web

Tony Bingham considers the subtleties of serial adjudications and when an adjudicator is bound by what was decided last time around

Serial adjudications can come thick and fast sometimes. It’s attractive to knock each dispute on the head as they pop up. Bear in mind that an adjudicated dispute decision is binding on those adjudicators trotting along behind. But watch out for subtleties. The issue in the interesting Scottish case Engenda Group Ltd vs Petroineos Manufacturing Scotland Ltd [2024] CSOH36 is whether the adjudicator was bound by what he had decided last time round. He said no; Engenda said yes; Petroineos said no. The court said yes.

Petroineos subcontracted a variety of engineering services works at Grangemouth Refinery to Engenda Group. Disputes cropped up. Adjudications #3 and #4 are interesting.

In #3 the adjudicator decided that Engenda was in breach of contract for delays, but declined to order damages. Engenda then claimed its balance of account of £1.1m. Nothing came, so Engenda began adjudication #4. Petroineos countered in the adjudication, with a defence being a claim in damages of £1.1m plus more.

Read more …

This content is available to REGISTERED users

You are not currently logged in.

LOGIN or REGISTER to access this story

Gated access promo

LOGIN or REGISTER for free access on selected stories and sign up for email alerts.

Take out a print and online or online only subscription and you will get immediate access to:

  • Breaking industry news as it happens
  • Expert analysis and comment from industry leaders
  • Unlimited access to all stories, including premium content
  • Full access to all our online archive

Get access to premium content subscribe today