Did Award No 2 trump Adjudication Decision 3?
The employer argued that because Award No 2 was final and binding and Adjudication Decision 3 was, at most, only temporarily binding, Award No 2 trumped that decision, and should be enforced regardless of the position in Adjudication Decision 3. The Court held that: • Both decisions were binding on the other side. One did not have greater status than the other. They were both capable of being the subject of the judgment of the court. • Award No 2 was described on its face as being “provisional” because the Arbitrator was still tasked with the exercise of assessing the detailed costs. There was no reason to elevate its status above Adjudication Decision 3. • The mutual debts arose out of the same transaction and gave rise to an equitable estoppel. Lord Denning in Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc (1978) 1 QB 927, said: “It is not every cross-claim which can be deducted. It is only cross-claims that arise out of the same transaction or are closely connected with it.
