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

Jacobs UK Ltd v Skanska Construction UK Ltd [2017] EWHC 2395 (TCC)

29th Sep 2017

The case concerned an application by the claimant (“Jacobs”) against the defendant (“Skanska”) for an injunction to restrain Skanska from proceeding with an adjudication, following Skanska’s withdrawal from an earlier adjudication in respect of the dispute between the parties. The material question raised by the dispute was whether a party to an adjudication is entitled to withdraw a dispute from adjudication and refer the same, or substantially the same, dispute to a second adjudication.

Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE concluded that a party to an adjudication is entitled to withdraw unilaterally a dispute referred to adjudication and commence a further adjudication in respect of the same, or substantially the same, dispute. That in such circumstances, the court has power to grant an injunction to restrain pursuit of the further adjudication if the further adjudication is unreasonable and oppressive. The judgment was that in this case the second adjudication did not amount to unreasonable and oppressive behaviour, justifying the exercise of the courts’ discretion in granting injunctive relief. Jacobs is entitled to its wasted and/or additional costs, if any, caused by Skanska’s failure to comply with the agreement of 13 February 2017.

Instructed by Beale & Co for the Claimant.

Related barrister Nicholas Dennys QC.

To view the full judgment please click here.

29 September 2017





Related Juristictions

Register for updates

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

 

Register