AMEC Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for
Transport
[2005]
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:
Back to Reported Cases