Section 108 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 says:
“(1) A party to a construction contract has the right to refer a dispute arising under the contract for adjudication under a procedure complying with this section.”
Where there is a dispute as to whether there has been a full and final settlement agreement between the contractual parties does the dispute arise “under” the construction contract or under the alleged settlement agreement or both?
In J Murphy & Sons Ltd v W Maher and Sons Ltd [2016] Murphy issued proceedings seeking a declaration that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute arising out of an alleged final settlement since:
– the alleged settlement agreement was a standalone agreement and
– there was no adjudication agreement applicable to that agreement and
– the disputed claim did not arise “under” the original sub-sub-contract.
The High Court said that adjudicator had jurisdiction because the adjudication clauses in the sub-sub-contract survived and were broad enough to cover a dispute arising under the alleged settlement agreement because that later agreement undoubtedly arose in connection with the original sub-sub-contract.
“A dispute as to whether all or some of the alleged entitlements which one contractual party has against the other has been settled in a binding way arises “under” the original contract.”
This blog has been posted out of general interest. It does not replace the need to get bespoke legal advice in individual cases.
Original article: Construction: Adjudicator’s powers survived “binding settlement”.