ºÚ¶´ÉçÇø

Judge Thornton explained three useful points in the case of Westminster ºÚ¶´ÉçÇø Company vs Andrew Beckingham. Before we go any further, hark the round of applause to the adjudicator Mr Bob Ames. You were spot on, my boy. None of the three points were easy. All of them were to do with the law and this RICS non-lawyer fellow goes top of the class.

The story is about Mr Beckingham spending a quarter of a million pounds on refurbishing his mid-terrace town house. No mean sum. The contractual bumf proposed by Mr Beckingham's team included the JCT Intermediate Form. That's spot on as well. For one reason or another the contractual completion date ran away. So the parties signed up a capping agreement at about month eight. Then there was a row about what it meant. Westminster now said it was underpaid. So the adjudicator did his 28-day rain-dance and obliged Mr Beckingham to pay up. When Mr Beckingham stalled, Westminster sued.

The short trial in court became a test of the same issues raised in the summary judgment application. The first of these is a source of constant disputes: the employer, its team and contractor hammer out a deal, then while the documents are being prepared, a letter of intent confirms that the builder will start on site. Sometimes that letter says the whole deal is in place and the signature on the JCT is merely a matter of admin. Sometimes though the letter of intent bars the formal contract coming alive until signed.

Mr Beckingham's letter of intent was the latter. Eventually Westminster signed the JCT but not Mr Beckingham. In the adjudication and at trial Mr Beckingham argued that his want of signature prevented the contract having teeth. Won't do.

Mr Beckingham's silence, leaving the unsigned contract on his sideboard, allowing the builder to press on and operating the machinery in JCT were enough for the contract to take effect. That's what the judge said and that's what the adjudicator said.

The consumer is king. The consumer, poor chap, is to be mollycoddled, featherbedded, pampered

The second issue was about this further agreement eight months into the work. Mr Beckingham argued that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to consider the capping agreement, no power to decide a dispute about it. In a similar case called Shepherd vs Mecright no adjudicator could decide that quarrel because the deal was outside the construction contract. But in this latest case, the capping agreement changed the previous agreements under the contract. That is to say, it was an internal matter that was not outside the contract, so any dispute about the capping agreement was subject to adjudication. That's what the judge said and that's what the adjudicator said.

The third issue was another tricky bit of law.

Mr Beckingham argued that he escaped all this adjudication malarkey because he is a "consumer". Remind yourself about the status of consumers. The consumer is king. The consumer, poor chap, is to be mollycoddled, featherbedded, pampered. Mr Beckingham ran for cover under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. Let me explain. The work for Mr Beckingham was on his own domestic home. Thus he is not carrying out a construction contract as defined in law and therefore no one can "make" him adjudicate. Westminster said that since Mr Beckingham had agreed a JCT form, which contains an adjudication clause, he had consented. Do you now see why he earlier argued that the JCT form didn't apply? Having been told he was bound by JCT and the adjudication clause therein, he wanted to use these Consumer Contracts Regulations to cry foul. Come off it. Mr Beckingham's RICS surveyors recommended the JCT form; they were a competent bunch. If adjudication were a pitfall, they would have said so. Nor does adjudication constitute "a significant imbalance" to the consumer's rights, nor does it hinder the consumer's right to take legal action. Mr Beckingham could not use the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations to duck adjudication. Mr Beckingham has to pay up.