Barrister: Andrew Kearney
Area of Law: Construction and Engineering
Summary: This case was heard in the Technology and Construction Court, and is one of the few cases in which enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision was refused. Andrew acted for the successful party, Ecovision, both advising it in the adjudication (to the point where it withdrew and refused to take no further part) and in the Part 8 proceedings which followed. The Adjudicator was appointed by the RICS. Andrew successfully argued that properly construed the contract incorporated the TeCSA rules and required that the Adjudicator be appointed by the Chair of TeCSA. In this case it was important to identify the correct procedure to be followed, since there were material differences between the three possible procedures – NEC3 clause W2 (as amended), the Scheme and the TeCSA rules. The case is highly unusual in that it is uncommon for a responding party in adjudication to go beyond simply reserving its position on jurisdiction and instead to refuse to participate (and then itself commence proceedings for a declaration that the decision was a nullity).
View judgment: Ecovision Systems Ltd v Vinci Construction UK Ltd