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
 
FREE EXCERPT

A1/00/3485

Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 654

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT

(His Honour Judge Richard Seymour QC)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2

Friday, 6th April 2001

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE POTTER

LORD JUSTICE CLARKE

MR. JUSTICE BENNETT

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

JAMES MOORE EARTHMOVING

Appellant

- v -

MILLER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes

of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited

190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG

Telephone No: 0171-421 4040

Fax No: 0171-831 8838

Official 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 BERNAL

  1. 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 appropriate for us at least to say something. The first is the reputation of the arbitrator and...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL