The EPCM contractor sought to engage the services of Y to provide quantum and delay expert services in the EPCM Arbitration. The employer brought counterclaims for delay and disruption caused by the EPCM contractor’s alleged negligence, including for any additional sums payable to the contractor caused by the EPCM contactor’s alleged late issue of the IFC drawings. Subsequently, a second arbitration was commenced by the EPCM contractor against the employer in relation to unpaid fees (EPCM Arbitration). The employer engaged the services of X to provide delay expert services in the Works Package Arbitration. The contractor was claiming additional costs for delay, which it alleged was caused by the late release of the IFC drawings. The first arbitration proceedings were between the employer and contractor in relation to works packages for a petrochemical plant (Works Package Arbitration). In A Company v (1) X, (2) Y, (3) Z, O’Farrell J granted an injunction to prevent an expert witness from acting for a party in arbitration proceedings in circumstances where a colleague from the same global consultancy firm was already acting for the other party in separate arbitration proceedings. In a case that might cause alarm to firms providing expert witness services, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) issued a judgment this month finding that experts may owe a fiduciary duty to their clients preventing their firms acting for other parties in related proceedings.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |