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

Vinci Construction UK Ltd v Beumer Group UK Ltd [2018] EWHC 1874 (TCC) (24 July 2018)

24th Jul 2018

Andrew Goddard QC, Felicity Dynes and Mathias Cheung acted for Vinci in successful enforcement proceedings relating to an Adjudicator’s Decision.

The Decision concerned Vinci’s entitlement to liquidated damages from its subcontractor, Beumer Group UK Limited (“Beumer”), in relation to a subcontract concerning the provision of a baggage handling system at Gatwick Airport.

Three principal arguments were raised on enforcement. First, Beumer argued that the Decision was inconsistent with earlier Decisions of the same Adjudicator in disputes it had referred to Adjudication. Second, Beumer argued that the Adjudicator failed to give any or any adequate reasons. Third, Beumer sought to rely on an argument that a breach of justice had occurred based on the fact that the Adjudicator had not ordered Vinci to disclose documents from a 2016 adjudication commenced by another subcontractor against Vinci on the same project in which he was also Adjudicator.

Interestingly, Beumer relied on the Judgment of Fraser J from 2016 relating to Beumer’s unsuccessful attempts to enforce an Adjudication Decision by an earlier Adjudicator in which Fraser J had criticised Beumer’s conduct in advancing wholly inconsistent cases in simultaneous adjudications before the first Adjudicator against Vinci and against its subsubcontractor.

The Judge rejected all challenges to enforcement: the Decision was not inconsistent with previous ones; the reasons were adequate; there was no evidence of inconsistency, the Adjudicator had not been requested to order disclosure and no proper material was put before him which would have required him to order disclosure or resign.

Andrew Goddard QC, Felicity Dynes and Mathias Cheung (instructed by Fenwick Elliott LLP) for the Claimant.

To read the full judgment please click here.

24 July 2018

 

 





Related Juristictions

Register for updates

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

 

Register