AMEC Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport (101 Con LR 26 CA)

Citation: 101 Con LR 26 CA

Nature of case:
Already reported in BLR this decision has attracted considerable interest because of the ‘seven propositions’ by which the dispute/no dispute issue is to be decided, adduced at first instance by Jackson J and approved by the CA. This is known as the ‘Thelwall Viaduct’ case. The contractor had argued that there was no dispute or difference capable of reference to arbitration. However, the CA’s view was that ICE (5th edition) Clause 66 should not be construed legalistically, so as to preclude timely commencement of arbitration proceedings. The CA held the judge’s analysis to have been correct, given the claimant’s resistance to the defective work allegations.

See other reports:

[2005] 1 WLR 2339 CA
[2005] Con LJ Vol.21 No.8 p.640 CA
[2005] CILL 2228 and [2005] BLR 227 CA
[2005] CILL 2189 TCC



Simon Hughes KC
John Marrin KC
Sarah Hannaford KC

  • Share