The decision by his Honour Judge R Havery QC on 19th January 2001 in
A J Brenton v Jack Palmer (2001) deals with the interesting issue of
whether the courts will review an adjudicators decision on his own
jurisdiction, which may if incorrect deprive the adjudicator's decision
of any validity. It appears central to this case, although not clear
from the judgment, that the issue of the adjudicator's jurisdiction had
been submitted to the adjudicator for his decision by the parties, that
the adjudicator had considered the matter and had made his decision. In
short, it appears that the parties had submitted to the jurisdiction of
the adjudicator to decide his own jurisdiction.
Brenton sought summary judgment to enforce the award of an
adjudicator in relation to a dispute arising out of a construction
contract relating to the supply of electrical equipment and the fitting
of electrical equipment to the premises of Mr Palmer.
Palmer submitted that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to make his
award, because the true party to the relevant contract was Lords of
Princetown Limited, the company, rather than Mr Palmer himself. The
adjudication was between up Brenton and Mr Palmer. That issue was raised
before the adjudicator, and he decided as a question of fact that the
contracting party was Mr Palmer and not Lord, and he ordered Mr Palmer
to pay Brenton the sum of approximately 26,000 within 14 days, plus
fees, in so far as the fees had been paid by Brenton to the adjudicator.
The issue then was whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide
the dispute if he was wrong in his finding of fact as to the contractual
party. If he was right, it was not suggested that he erred in law in
deciding that he had jurisdiction. The question before Judge Havery was
whether the finding that was made that Mr Palmer was a party to the
contract was something that could be questioned in enforcement
proceedings.
Judge Havery held that it could not. He held that it was a finding
that was properly made, and he had not erred in law in reaching a
conclusion that he had jurisdiction, having regard to that finding.
Judge Havery observed that there was no authority directly on the
point but referred to the decision of Dyson J in
The Project Consultancy
Group v The Trustees of the Gray Trust (1999) and in
Macob Civil
Engineering v Morrison Construction Ltd.
Judge Havery considered that the crucial part of the judgment in
Project Consultancy was the observation that although a decision would
be enforced even if it was wrong, different considerations applied when
the adjudicator purported to make a decision which he was not empowered
by the 1996 Act to make.
Judge Havery held that in this case the adjudicator purported to make
a decision which he was empowered by the Act to make. If he made any
error in it, which in fact resulted in his having no jurisdiction, it
was an error of fact which it was certainly within his jurisdiction to
determine.
Judge Havery held that in those circumstances the award was binding
to the extent that any adjudicator's award was binding, i.e.
provisionally, and subject to any further proceedings that might be
taken to set it aside.
Mr Palmer's legal representatives had applied for an adjournment
because Mr Palmer had become seriously ill and it was said he could not
give further instructions on the question of the circumstances in which
the contract was made which would throw light on the true contracting
party. Judge Havery held that since he had decided that that would not
be admissible or relevant evidence so far as enforcing the adjudicator's
award was concerned, it seemed that no useful purpose would be served by
adjourning the application. Judge Havery observed it would merely keep
Brenton out of his money, to which she was undoubtedly entitled so far
as the adjudication went.
Accordingly Judge Havery refused to adjourn the hearing and gave
judgment for Brenton.
| 