Ben Beaumont

Here is another case where Multiplex, the constructor of the national stadium at Wembley, is providing assistance to the growing body of case law relevant to adjudication, Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Mott Macdonald Ltd, 10 January 2007, TCC. Multiplex applied for summary judgment to enforce the decisions of an adjudicator. In this case, the defendant, Mott Macdonald Ltd, had been engaged upon engineering design work since May 1998 for Wembley Stadium, WNSL.

The appeal by Sir Roy Meadow has hit the headlines. Has this case anything to do with the day to day life of a professional who sometimes has to give advice? In my view, yes.

There was a trial. In this case a criminal trial. As a result there was a criminal conviction. There was an appeal against that conviction. That appeal was successful. One of the grounds of appeal was that an element of expert evidence given by Sir Roy was not entirely accurate.

In Sandhu Menswear Company Limited and Woolworths Plc (5th June 2006, as yet unreported), in the High Court in Birmingham, HHJ Frances Kirkham had to rule as to whether Woolworths were liable to the claimants for the damage caused by a fire. The fire had been caused by third parties. The third parties had set alight to combustible waste contained in open cages at the rear of an industrial unit leased, and occupied, by Woolworths.

Seldom is it possible to respond for the call for articles for the adjudication society newsletter with such pleasure. The judgment of Mr Justice Akenhead handed out on the 27th of February 2008 is such an instance. The parties were Cantillon Limited against Urvasco Limited. Basically; the facts are unimportant, save to say this was a claim to enforce an adjudication decision. It was attacked on various grounds, which included breaches of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction and the issues of severability or the ability to separate parts of the adjudication decision.