This might also interest you...

The court criticises inconsistent arguments and excessive costs.

31 Aug 2016

The case of Ground Developments v FCC Construccion concerned the adjudication of a dispute over construction works.  During adjudication, the contractors’ primary case was that there had been no contract, which the adjudicator found against.


In court, the contractor said that there was in fact a contract and argued that the adjudicator had decided an issue different from that referred to him.  The court upheld the adjudicator’s decision and criticised the contractor for not identifying their primary and consistent argument at the adjudication.  The court also criticised the costs incurred by the parties, which amounted to over £55,000 to enforce the adjudicator’s decision to award £207,000.


This judgment makes it clear that when parties agree to adjudication, they should be open and consistent in what their line of argument is.  Further the court will take a dim view of parties who raise new arguments after an adjudication and run up excessive costs doing so.  The whole point of adjudication is to keep overall costs down.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Please reload

  • FB
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Youtube

Short Richardson & Forth, 4 Mosley Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 1DE

Tel: +44 (0)191 232 0283  ·  Email:


Short Richardson and Forth Solicitors Limited is a private limited company registered in England and Wales under company number 10572065, authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority No 637150.

Short Richardson and Forth Solicitors Limited is a private limited company constituted and run in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 2006. The term “partner” has been used to denote individual senior solicitors employed by Short Richardson and Forth Solicitors Limited.