Click Here.pdf

The court considered a case involving a dispute resolution clause that allowed for expert determination in specific circumstances. Empyreal Energy Ltd (EEL) engaged Daylighting Power Ltd (DPL) to design, supply, and install a solar park, but EEL alleged defects in the work. The contract had a clause (36) that permitted expert determination for disputes that the contract expressly allowed, and the referring party had served notice of its intention to refer the dispute.

EEL claimed £1,713,674.60 from DPL, stating that a dispute had crystallized, and they would proceed with expert determination if the sum was not paid. DPL denied the existence of defects and expressed concerns about the validity of EEL's reference to expert determination. Despite this, an expert was appointed, and he decided that DPL should pay EEL the claimed sum.

However, the court found that the dispute referred to expert determination was not permitted under the contract, as EEL had not clearly defined the dispute as a claim for a reasonable reimbursement of the contract price (as allowed by clause 13.7(b)). The court also found that EEL's notice of intention to refer the dispute was unclear and did not meet the requirements of clause 36.

As a result, the court held that the expert lacked jurisdiction to decide the dispute, and the decision was null and void. The court dismissed EEL's claim to enforce the decision, highlighting the importance of strictly interpreting dispute resolution clauses and precisely defining disputes to avoid unenforceable decisions.