Building surveyors and adjudication: the implications of Hurst Stores v. M L Europe Property Limited (2004)

Abstract

Purpose

To consider the recent decision by the Court of Appeal in the case of Hurst Stores v. M L Europe Property Ltd (2004) and the possible important implications for building surveyors and other construction professionals.

Design/methodology/approach

A review of literature and case law. Possible developments in this area of law are considered.

Findings

A person described as a “project manager” does not necessarily have authority to make legally binding agreements. Where a building surveyor is acting as a project manager, the extent of authority ought to be clarified, preferably in writing. Where a building surveyor is dealing or negotiating with a project manager, he/she cannot take it for granted that any agreement reached will be legally binding. Furthermore, as a consequence of the decision in the Court of Appeal, a document with the heading “Final Account” might not be a final account at all!

Research implications

Increasingly, building surveyors are involved in adjudication, either as witnesses or as adjudicators. In the latter case, the building surveyor ought to be aware that as a result of this case, the probability of a legal challenge to an adjudicator's decision is greatly increased. Another consequence of cases such as Hurst means that building surveyors are more likely rather than less likely to be involved in adjudication if they are operating in the UK.

Originality/value

Applies recent case law to the work of building surveyors.

Citation

Donohoe, S. (2005), "Building surveyors and adjudication: the implications of Hurst Stores v. M L Europe Property Limited (2004)", Structural Survey, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 55-62. https://doi.org/10.1108/02630800510586916