Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Introduction [1] This is a reclaiming motion by the pursuer against an interlocutor dated 26 March 2014 by which the Lord Ordinary refused to grant interim interdict against the respondent and defender from referring for adjudication any disputes arising from a contract between the pursuer and the defender.
The adjudications [3] Between June 2013 and March 2014 there were nine adjudications in relation to the contract. Of these, eight were initiated by the defender and one by the pursuer. The Lord Ordinary summarised the adjudications under reference to the date of commencement of each proceeding:
The defender sought payment of £184,740. The adjudicator declined jurisdiction and resigned on 4 July 2013, on the basis that the defender had failed to refer the dispute to adjudication in the contractually stipulated manner.
The defender again sought payment of £184,740. The adjudicator again declined the jurisdiction and resigned on 30 July 2013, on the basis that the defender had failed to refer the dispute to adjudication in the contractually stipulated manner.
The defender again sought payment of £184,740. The adjudicator determined that the sum sought was significantly exaggerated. The defender was awarded £17,028. The parties were each found liable for 50 per cent of the adjudicator's fees.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.