Harding v Paice & Springall: TCC considers “same or substantially the same” in paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme

Harding v Paice & Springall [2014] EWHC 3824 (TCC)

Charles Pimlott acted for the successful respondents to an application brought in the TCC to restrain the pursuit of an adjudication.  The case raised the issue of the proper meaning of paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (as amended).  Edwards-Stuart J decided that, in order for paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme to be triggered, there must be a decision on the dispute referred in the previous adjudication.  Since the dispute referred in the subsequent adjudication had not been decided in the previous adjudication, there were no grounds for granting the injunction sought.

Click here for the judgment.

Click here for Charles's article for PLC.

Back to News


About cookies on our website

Our site uses cookies to improve your experience of certain areas of the site. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but as a result parts of the site may not work as intended. To find out more about what cookies are, which cookies we use on this website and how to delete and block cookies, please see our privacy policy page.

Click on the button below to accept the use of cookies on this website (this will prevent the dialogue box from appearing on future visits).