Iam much obliged to Alexander Dain of Contract & Construction Consultants, Bristol for sending me the High Court judgment in Mead General Building vs Dartmoor Properties. It ended up in court because Dartmoor would not obey the adjudicator's decision to award Mead ￡347k. Dartmoor wanted a stay, a pause, on having to pay because Mead was subject to a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) with its creditors.rnMead had agreed to build a housing development in Oakhampton, Devon, under the JCT Intermediate Form. A dispute then arose and Peter Simpson, a RICS adjudicator, was called in to decide it. He ordered Dartmoor to pay up.rnDartmoor's managing director replied that he was wrong. He was wrong to award an extension of 27 weeks and wrong to order that 23 of those weeks carried loss and expense. Dartmoor said it intended to overturn these decisions in arbitration. Thernsnag was that if Mead was in serious financial straits, and the arbitrator reversed the adjudicator, then there was a danger that it would be unable to repay the award.
展开▼
机译：Iam非常有义务向布里斯托尔的合同与建筑顾问亚历山大·戴恩（Alexander Dain）向我发送了高等法院在米德总建筑公司（Mead General Building）对达特穆尔地产（Dartmoor Properties）中的判决。由于达特穆尔（Dartmoor）不服从陪审员的裁决，判给米德（Mead）34.7万英镑，法院最终以法庭告终。 Dartmoor希望暂停付款，因为Mead受债权人的公司自愿安排（CVA）的约束。rnMead同意以JCT中级表格在德文郡Oakhampton建房。随后发生了争执，并要求RICS法官Peter Simpson作出裁决。他命令达特穆尔付款。达特穆尔的董事总经理回答说他错了。他授予延长27周的延误是错误的，并且命令在其中23周承担损失和费用是错误的。达特穆尔说，它打算推翻这些仲裁裁决。 Thernsnag认为，如果Mead处在严重的财务困境中，而仲裁员推翻了仲裁员，则存在无法偿还裁决的危险。
展开▼
