Building Law Monthly
When is a dispute the same or substantially the same?
Hitachi Zosen Inova AG v John Sisk & Son Ltd  EWHC 495 (TCC) Stuart-Smith J rejected a submission that a dispute which had been referred to adjudication was the
same or substantially the same as a dispute between the parties which had previously been referred to adjudication. In so
concluding he rejected the proposition that there is a hard-edged rule that disputes should be regarded as being the same
or substantially the same if there is an overlap of evidence between the two cases. The focus of the court should, in all
adjudication cases, be on the matter decided by the adjudicator in the first dispute, not on the matters referred to him or
her or the submissions made by the parties in that adjudication. It is only where the dispute referred to adjudication is
one that was the same or substantially the same as one previously decided by an adjudicator that the adjudicator in the later
adjudication will lack jurisdiction.
The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.
If you are already a subscriber, click login button.Login