Nature of case

This case raised the question as to whether the words “made in writing” or “evidenced in writing” under the HGCRA extend to variations ordered orally under a contract by virtue of an express contractual term allowing the ordering of such variations. The court held that if a written contract allowed the scope of the work to be changed within the limits provided for by the written contractual provisions, such variations were merely instructions issued under the contract and with the authority of the contractual provisions that related to the carrying out of the contract. The court also held that if a responding party contends that a relevant contract (the ‘construction contract’) does not contain the terms applicable to the dispute, it may raise that contention as a ground of defence within the adjudication but cannot subsequently contend that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction.

Counsel: Jessica Stephens

<< Back to Reported Cases