‘DISPUTE’ TO BE GIVEN ORDINARY MEANING IN ADJUDICATION

Beck Peppiatt Ltd v Norwest Holst Construction Ltd [2003] EWHC 822 (TCC); [2003] BLR 316

In Beck Peppiatt Ltd v Norwest Holst Construction Ltd [2003] EWHC 822 (TCC); [2003] BLR 316 Mr Justice Forbes held that, when deciding whether or not there was a dispute for the purposes of s108(1) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (hereafter, ‘the 1996 Act’), the court should apply the test laid down by the Court of Appeal in Halki Shipping Corporation v Sopex Oils Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 727. The word ‘dispute’ is therefore to be given its ordinary, natural meaning and there is no necessary requirement that there be a passage of time after the making of a claim before the adjudication is commenced.