Earthmoving v Miller Construction Ltd, Court of Appeal - Civil Division, April 06, 2001, [2001] BLR 322,[2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 598,[2001] EWCA Civ 654

Resolution Date:April 06, 2001
Issuing Organization:Civil Division
Actores:Earthmoving v Miller Construction Ltd

A1/00/3485Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 654IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURECOURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONTECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT(His Honour Judge Richard Seymour QC) Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday, 6th April 2001B e f o r e :LORD JUSTICE POTTERLORD JUSTICE CLARKEMR. JUSTICE BENNETT- - - - - - - - - - - - -JAMES MOORE EARTHMOVINGAppellant- v -MILLER CONSTRUCTION LIMITEDRespondent- - - - - - - - - - - - -(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notesof Smith Bernal Reporting Limited190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AGTelephone No: 0171-421 4040Fax No: 0171-831 8838Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)- - - - - - - - - - - - -MR. P. DARLING Q.C. and MR. M. GIAQUINTO (instructed by Messrs Wragge & Co., Birmingham) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.MR. J. MARRIN Q.C. and MISS K. GORDON (instructed by Messrs Dundas & Wilson) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.- - - - - - - - - - - - -J U D G M E N T SMITH BERNAL1. LORD JUSTICE POTTER: I will ask Lord Justice Clarke to give the judgment of the court.2. LORD JUSTICE CLARKE: This is an appeal from an order of His Honour Judge Seymour QC made on 1st November 2000 in the Technology and Construction Court, in which he set aside an interim award dated 31st March 2000 and made by John Phillips as arbitrator, and removed him for misconduct. The award had awarded £739,693.65 against the respondent. The judge also considered an application for permission to appeal against the award. He gave permission and, as we understand it, by agreement heard argument on the appeal and allowed the appeal.3. For the avoidance of doubt I shall refer to the appellant in this appeal (who was the respondent before the judge) as ``Moore'' and to the respondent in this appeal (who was the applicant and appellant before the judge) as Miller.4. The underlying dispute arises between Moore as subcontractor and Miller as contractor in connection with the construction of a bypass. During the course of the argument this morning on the appeal, the parties have compromised the appeal on the basis that the appeal will be allowed on certain terms. In these circumstances we would not ordinarily think it necessary to give any form of judgment. However, two aspects of the case have persuaded us that it is...

To continue reading