Searching:
  • Acts
  • SIs
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Bills before Parliament
Searching:
  • Official Journal C
  • OJC Documents (in CELEX)
  • EU Cases
  • EU Legislation
  • EU Treaties
  • EU Proposals
  • EU Nat. Implementation
  • EU Parl. Questions
  • EFTA Documents
  • EU External Agreements
  • OJ Daily
  • Human Rights Conventions
Searching:
  • HERMES
  • Times
  • EU News and Commentaries
  • CUP Journals
  • Bills before Parliament
  • Other Articles
  • PLC
  • OUP Journals
  • Blackwell Journals
  • RMIT Journals
  • Court Forms
close
Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Limited (Claimant) v Higgins Construction Plc (Defendant)
To see all the information available for this document you will need to Sign In.

1 User Commentary

Melanie Davidson (In-house lawyer) 28 September 2015

Case Digest: Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Limited (Respondent) v Higgins Construction Plc (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 38

0 reviews Your rating:

Whether, and to what extent, in commencing proceedings after the limitation period has elapsed for the other side, a paying party is able to disturb a provisional position established an adjudicator's decision.

The Supreme Court handed down judgment on 17 June 2015 in Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Limited (Respondent) v Higgins Construction Plc (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 38. Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, and Lord Toulson heard the appeal. 

Handing down the judgment, Lord Mance stated that adjudication is intended as a provisional measure pending final determination (under sections 108 and 114 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, read with The Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No 649). Aspect's indepenedent basis for having the original dispute determined arose from the payment to Higgins', on an implied contractual or restititionary basis. A directly enforceable right to recover the payment arose when it was not found to have been due. This fell within the six year limitation period for their claims in contract and restitution. In contrast Higgins Construction's counter-claim for the balance of its original claim was time-barred under the Limitations Act 1980.

The obiter observations of the Court of Appeal in Walker Construction Ltd v Quayside Homes Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 93 approving Akenhead J’s decision in the present case, were wrong and were overruiled.

Appeal unanimously dismissed.

database/2017-08-22T19:34:29.4886516Z/10642011

Getting the most out of


JustCite is a one-of-its-kind legal research tool that shows you how materials cite and relate to each other. It has an enormous index of information about legal documents and where to find them, but does not contain the documents themselves.

Justis is our full-text online legal library, with an ever-growing range of primary and specialist law reports, judgments and legislation from the UK, Ireland, EU, Australia and Canada.

Register for a Free Trial
Get started with Justis and JustCite now