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.
