MULTIPLE ADJUDICATIONS AND EXTENSIONS OF TIME

Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Contractors Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1737; [2006] All ER (D) 331 (Dec)

In Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Contractors Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1737; [2006] All ER (D) 331 (Dec) the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the decision of Mr Justice Jackson (on which see our April 2006 issue, pp.7–10) and held that the decision of the adjudicator was not enforceable because he had been wrong in so far as he had refused to consider evidence submitted on behalf of the defendant. The adjudicator had not considered the evidence because he had held in a previous adjudication that the defendant was not entitled to an extension of time. However, the grounds on which the defendant claimed that it was entitled to an extension of time in this adjudication differed in significant respects from those advanced in the earlier adjudication and so the adjudicator ought to have considered the evidence submitted on behalf of the defendant. Lord Justice Dyson also distinguished between a contractual entitlement to apply for an extension of time and the entitlement to refer a dispute relating to an application for an extension of time to adjudication. The two processes are different and so the fact that an architect has considered a successive application for an extension of time does not mean that there is also an entitlement to make a successive referral of a dispute to adjudication.