There is an angle in this Scottish case, Curot Contracts vs Castle Inns (Stirling), that is worth thinking about. It was an adjudicator's award that ordered Castle to pay Curot the hefty sum of ￡444k plus VAT. There had been a row about the amount certified in an interim account. It was too low, said the adjudicator. His ruling was binding immediately. Castle was supposed to stump up. But Castle had a quarrel. It took the view that the adjudicator had taken a wrong turn; so, said Castle, the award should fall away. Its reason was "a failure by the adjudicator to understand the law". That's what it told the Scottish Court of Session when Curot tried to enforce the award.Now then, it has long since been true that if the adjudicator accepts an argument about the law that is wrong, then hard luck: the parties are bound by his wrong choice. It's the same with facts: if the adjudicator accepts one party's evidence and thereby arrives at a fact, that's that. You can see that "failure to understand the law" has all the makings of a non-starter.
展开▼
