Greenwich workshop dating system

22 Jul

On any view and regardless of the outcome it is a matter for regret that what had been an extremely good working relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such a level that the parties have been unable or unwilling to settle their differences and have instead expended such substantial amounts of time, money and, I am sure, stress and anxiety in the pursuit and defence of their respective claims.This is an application by the first defendant Balfour Beatty Engineering Services (HY) Limited, which I shall refer to as “Balfour Beatty”, to strike out the claim against it or obtain summary judgment on the claim in its favour on the ground that the claim stands no real prospect of success.The respective cases have been presented with skill, expedition and courtesy by both counsel.The evidence took 10 days to complete and, following a further day of oral submissions, I reserved judgment.The claimant, Pickard Finlason Partnership Ltd (“PFP”), is a multidisciplinary professional building design consultancy practice, based in Hale, Cheshire. In 2008 the defendants, Adele Lock and Matt Lock (“the Locks”), purchased a grade 2 listed property in Prestbury, Cheshire, known as Butley Hall, with a view to its development.At the time Butley Hall was subdivided into 7 self-contained apartments.The Employer was Wales & West Utilities Ltd (“Wales”). The primary issues between the parties relate to the jurisdiction of the adjudicator in two adjudications known as Adjudication Nos.2 and 3 and in particular the scope of the dispute referred to him in Adjudication 2.

greenwich workshop dating system-90greenwich workshop dating system-70

That the adjudication is oppressive in that it imposes an unconscionable burden on Twintec.However, Twintec also contends that VFL should be restrained from pursuing the adjudication on other grounds.These are: That the adjudication seeks to undermine and circumvent the case management in the Main Claim by: (a) disrupting Twintec’s ability to abide by the Court’s timetable in that Main Claim; and (b) by seeking to obtain a result which was refused in the Main Claim.For the reasons given in this judgment I have concluded that this is a proper case for the grant of an injunction to restrain the further pursuit of this referral to adjudication.These two sets of proceedings relate to a dispute or possibly two disputes arising between the parties out of a contract dated (“the Contract”) for the supply and construction by PPS Pipeline Systems Gmb H (“PPS”) of a new gas pipeline from Llanwrin in Powys to Dolgellau in Gwynedd; some 24 kilometres of steel pipe was to be laid in Snowdonia.