AMEC Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport

Citation: CILL 2228 and [2005] BLR 227 CA

Nature of case:
This is the report of the CA’s dismissal of the contractor’s appeal in 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.  Note that Jackson J’s ‘seven propositions’ on the dispute/no dispute issue appear to have been upheld by the CA.  Note also that the decision expressly related adjudication cases to arbitration.

See other reports:

[2005] 1 WLR 2339 CA
[2005] Con LJ Vol.21 No.8 p.640 CA
[2005] 101 Con LR 26 CA
[2005] CILL 2189 TCC

 

Counsel

Simon Hughes QC
John Marrin QC
Sarah Hannaford QC

  • Share