- Serial adjudication—court rejects challenge to adjudicator’s jurisdiction based on alleged invalidity of previous adjudicator’s decision (Prater v John Sisk & Son (Holdings))
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Construction analysis: In connection with the fourth in a series of adjudications between a contractor (Sisk) and subcontractor (Prater), the court rejected arguments that the fourth adjudication decision should not be enforced because the adjudicator relied on elements of his second adjudication, which Sisk said was invalid as Prater had referred multiple disputes. The court held that in order to advance such an argument, substantive steps ought to have been taken to declare the second decision invalid, which Sisk had not done. This was enough to decide the case, but the court went on to consider (on an obiter basis) whether there was a jurisdictional issue with the second decision. It concluded that there was not—although various matters were included in the second adjudication referral, they were all part of the same dispute. Written by Alastair Walls, legal director and solicitor advocate at Pinsent Masons.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial