MJ Gleeson Group Plc v Wyatt of Snetterton Ltd
Citation: 72 B.L.R. 15; (1995) 11 Const. L.J. 59
Nature of case:
The case concerned the validity of an arbitrator’s appointment, and whether a particular dispute fell to be appointed by such an arbitrator, or by the engineer. Under the FCEC form of contract, cl.18.1 provided for arbitration of disputes. However, cl.18.2 provided for the contractor MJ Gleeson to give notice where “any dispute [arose] in connection with the Main Contract” that concerned the Sub-Contract Works, so that the disputes (between the employer and MJ Gleeson, and between MJ Gleeson and the sub-contractor Wyatt) could be dealt with jointly under cl.66 by the engineer.
In the event, the sub-contractor Wyatt produced a final account, which was passed on to the employer. The engineer identified areas of dispute in relation to that account. Wyatt gave notice of arbitration under cl.18.1, and MJ Gleeson gave notice under cl.18.2 requesting the engineer to deal with the dispute jointly. The Court was required to rule upon the meaning of “any dispute … in connection with the Main Contract”, and decide whether cl.18.2 applied as a result, which would render the appointment of the arbitrator invalid. There was also an issue on the facts as to whether there was an ad hoc agreement to arbitrate.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, and held that “any dispute” had no special meaning in the context of cl.18.2; if a claim had been made and rejected, there was a dispute for the purposes of that clause. The appointment of the arbitrator was therefore invalid, as the dispute had been referred to the engineer prior to his appointment. Further and on the facts, no ad hoc agreement existed to validate the appointment of the arbitrator.
