Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Chattan Developments Ltd v Reigill Civil Engineering Contractors Ltd

Chattan Developments Ltd v Reigill Civil Engineering Contractors Ltd 15 February 2007 Ramsey J Technology and Construction Court [2007] EWHC 305 [2007] ArbLR 11 Arbitration Award--Appeal--Question of law--Oral contract--Arbitrator finding parties intended to exclude damages--Whether error of law (no)-- Arbitration Act 1996, s 69 Arbitrator's findings of fact as to terms of oral contract cannot be challenged Chattan and Reigill concluded an agreement pursuant to which Reigill would construct 14 homes and complete related site works. Disputes arose concerning delays to the works. Chattan commenced arbitration. In a preliminary award, the arbitrator held that the parties had concluded an oral agreement referred to in correspondence which incorporated the terms of the JCT (1980 edition) standard form of construction contract but deleted cl 24 which provided for liquidated and ascertained damages in the event of delay. In a second award, the arbitrator dealt with the question of unliquidated damages. He found that the parties' intentions had been to exclude damages from the contract and dismissed Chattan's claims. Chattan appealed on ground of error of law contending that the deletion of cl 24 did not affect the other provisions of the JCT standard form, including cl 23 which provided for damages in the event of failure to complete on http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arbitration Law Reports and Review Oxford University Press

Chattan Developments Ltd v Reigill Civil Engineering Contractors Ltd

Arbitration Law Reports and Review , Volume 2007 (1) – Feb 3, 2017

Chattan Developments Ltd v Reigill Civil Engineering Contractors Ltd

Arbitration Law Reports and Review , Volume 2007 (1) – Feb 3, 2017

Abstract

15 February 2007 Ramsey J Technology and Construction Court [2007] EWHC 305 [2007] ArbLR 11 Arbitration Award--Appeal--Question of law--Oral contract--Arbitrator finding parties intended to exclude damages--Whether error of law (no)-- Arbitration Act 1996, s 69 Arbitrator's findings of fact as to terms of oral contract cannot be challenged Chattan and Reigill concluded an agreement pursuant to which Reigill would construct 14 homes and complete related site works. Disputes arose concerning delays to the works. Chattan commenced arbitration. In a preliminary award, the arbitrator held that the parties had concluded an oral agreement referred to in correspondence which incorporated the terms of the JCT (1980 edition) standard form of construction contract but deleted cl 24 which provided for liquidated and ascertained damages in the event of delay. In a second award, the arbitrator dealt with the question of unliquidated damages. He found that the parties' intentions had been to exclude damages from the contract and dismissed Chattan's claims. Chattan appealed on ground of error of law contending that the deletion of cl 24 did not affect the other provisions of the JCT standard form, including cl 23 which provided for damages in the event of failure to complete on

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/chattan-developments-ltd-v-reigill-civil-engineering-contractors-ltd-0hrf14GJGD
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Oxford University Press, 2012
Subject
Judgements
ISSN
2044-8651
eISSN
2044-9887
DOI
10.1093/alrr/2007.1.129
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

15 February 2007 Ramsey J Technology and Construction Court [2007] EWHC 305 [2007] ArbLR 11 Arbitration Award--Appeal--Question of law--Oral contract--Arbitrator finding parties intended to exclude damages--Whether error of law (no)-- Arbitration Act 1996, s 69 Arbitrator's findings of fact as to terms of oral contract cannot be challenged Chattan and Reigill concluded an agreement pursuant to which Reigill would construct 14 homes and complete related site works. Disputes arose concerning delays to the works. Chattan commenced arbitration. In a preliminary award, the arbitrator held that the parties had concluded an oral agreement referred to in correspondence which incorporated the terms of the JCT (1980 edition) standard form of construction contract but deleted cl 24 which provided for liquidated and ascertained damages in the event of delay. In a second award, the arbitrator dealt with the question of unliquidated damages. He found that the parties' intentions had been to exclude damages from the contract and dismissed Chattan's claims. Chattan appealed on ground of error of law contending that the deletion of cl 24 did not affect the other provisions of the JCT standard form, including cl 23 which provided for damages in the event of failure to complete on

Journal

Arbitration Law Reports and ReviewOxford University Press

Published: Feb 3, 2017

There are no references for this article.