Cookie consent

This website uses cookies to collect information about how you use this website. Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookies on atkinchambers.com

Cookies are files saved on your phone, tablet or computer when you visit a website.

Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookie settings

Atkin Chambers Limited use two types of cookie files, analytical cookies and necessary cookies. You can choose which cookies you are happy for us to use.

Analytical cookies that measure website use

Atkin Chambers Limited use Google Analytics to measure how you use the website so it can be improved based on user needs. Atkin Chambers do not allow Google to use or share the data about how you use this site.

Google Analytics sets cookies that store anonymised information about:

  • how you got to the site
  • the pages you visit on atkinchambers.com, and how long you spend on each page
  • what you click on while you’re visiting the site

Strictly necessary cookies

These essential cookies do things like remember your progress through a form (for example if you register for updates). They always need to be on.

Save changes

Empyreal Energy Ltd v Daylighting Power Ltd [2020] EWHC 1971 (TCC) (22 July 2020)

23rd Jul 2020

Jennifer Jones acting for the employer Empyreal Energy Limited in Empyreal Energy Ltd v Daylighting Power Ltd [2020] EWHC 1971 (TCC) (22 July 2020) successfully established that the employer’s expert was entitled to determine the existence of defects.

However the court found that the dispute that had been referred by the employer Empyreal Energy Limited (“EEL”) to the expert determiner and his decision were not permitted under the contract (Clause 36) and that the employer had not served a notice on DPL of its intention to refer the dispute for expert determination in accordance with the requirements of Clause 36.1 of the Contract.

Two sets of proceedings had been issued in the dispute which arose out of an EPC contract (dated November 2015) made between EEL and the contractor Daylighting Power Limited (“DPL”). The contract was for DPL to carry out the design, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of a solar energy park in Essex.

EEL alleged that DPL’s work was defective. DPL issued Part 8 proceedings on 14 May 2020. EEL commenced Part 7 proceedings on 29 May 2020. Both proceedings raised the same issue – namely whether Mr Robert Sliwinski, acting as an expert, had jurisdiction to determine and order that DPL pay to EEL the sum of £1,708,474.00 in respect of the cost of remedying works which EEL asserts but DPL denies were defective. Mr Sliwinski made ancillary orders for the payment of interest and his fees of the determination. EEL sought to enforce Mr Sliwinski’s order; DPL resisted enforcement.

In effect there were two questions before the court that is:

i) Was the dispute which EEL purported to refer to the expert determiner, and which he purported to decide, a dispute which the Contract permitted to be referred to expert determination in accordance with Clause 36?

and

ii) Did EEL serve a notice on DPL of its intention to refer the dispute for expert determination in accordance with the requirements of Clause 36.1 of the Contract?

Stuart-Smith J found that while EEL’s expert was entitled to determine the existence of defects, the dispute which EEL purported to refer, and which Mr Sliwinski purported to decide, was not one which the Contract permitted to be resolved by expert determination, that EEL failed to serve a notice on DPL of its intention to refer the dispute in accordance with clause 36.1 of the Contract, and that Mr Sliwinski lacked jurisdiction and his Determination dated 5 May 2020 was not binding on the parties. Accordingly EEL’s claim to enforce Mr Sliwinski’s determination failed.

Jennifer Jones (instructed by Stephens Scown LLP) for the Defendant.

To read the full judgment please click here: Empyreal Energy Ltd v Daylighting Power Ltd [2020] EWHC 1971 (TCC) (22 July 2020)

20 July 2020





Related Juristictions

Register for updates

To keep in touch with news and updates from Atkin Chambers:

 

Register