BuildLaw Issue 33 November 2018 | Page 24

claim due to defective work were only given after the date of the payment response and the adjudicator considered this and found that he had no jurisdiction to take that evidence into account in reaching the decision. The adjudicator did not breach the rules of natural justice by doing so.
United Kingdom
Vinci Construction UK Ltd v Beumer Group UK Ltd [2018] EWHC (TCC) (24 July 2018)
Vinci entered into a sub-contract with Beumer in November 2012 for the design, manufacture, fabrication, supply, delivery, offloading, installation, testing, commissioning, and user training in respect of the baggage handling system forming part of the new Pier 1 at the South Terminal of Gatwick Airport. The sub-contract includes provision for adjudication under Option W2 of the NEC3 Engineering and Construction Sub-Contact with some amendments. Clause W2.1(1) expressly provides that “[a]ny dispute arising under or in connection with this Sub-contract may be referred to and decided by the Adjudicator. A party may refer a dispute to the Adjudicator at any time”.












The subject reference to adjudication is the seventh adjudication between the parties. The adjudicator issued his decision on 2 May 2018. By letter on 8 May 2018, Vinci made demand on Beumer for payment of the adjudicated sum in respect of liquidated damages plus interest. By letter on 14 May 2018, Beumer advised that it did not intend to pay the adjudicated sums because they were dissatisfied with the adjudication decision. Vinci applied for summary judgment on 16 May 2018 to enforce the adjudication decision.
The main reason for Beumer resisting Vinci’s enforcement of the adjudication decision was that it alleged the adjudicator breached the rules of natural justice in the following three aspects:
(1) The adjudicator made findings which were inconsistent with findings made in a previous adjudication, with the result that the adjudicator not only decided something which had already been decided but did so in a manner inconsistent with the previous decision;
(2) The adjudicator did not give any or any adequate reasons for his decision in relation to the key issues in the dispute; and
(3) The adjudicator did not disclose or order Vinci to disclose material from a previous adjudication (between Vinci and another sub-contractor) which Beumer had a good reason to believe would have demonstrated that the case Vinci was advancing in this adjudication was inconsistent with the case it had advanced in that other adjudication.
In regard to the 2nd argument, the English legal position is that:
(1) “complainant would need to show that the reasons were absent or unintelligible and that, as a result, he had suffered substantial prejudice”8.
(2) “provided that the broad thrust of the reasoning is provided”, the court should enforce the decision.9