Karma\u015f\u0131k in\u015faat uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131nda davalar\u0131n sonucu \u00e7o\u011fu zaman sunulan belge miktar\u0131ndan ziyade, uzman delilinin niteli\u011fi ve yap\u0131s\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak \u015fekillenmektedir. Uygulamada s\u0131k\u00e7a kar\u015f\u0131la\u015f\u0131lan temel sorunlardan biri, sekt\u00f6rel tecr\u00fcbeye dayal\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerin, yap\u0131land\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f uzman bilirki\u015fi delili ile ayn\u0131 a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131kta de\u011ferlendirilip de\u011ferlendirilemeyece\u011fidir.\n\nBu ayr\u0131m, Santos Limited v Fluor Australia Pty Ltd & Fluor Corporation [2025] QSC 184 karar\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k ve \u00f6\u011fretici bir bi\u00e7imde ele al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Her ne kadar uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k gecikme, verim kayb\u0131 (disruption) ve ilave maliyet (quantum) taleplerini i\u00e7erse de, karar\u0131n en \u00f6nemli katk\u0131s\u0131, mahkemelerin uzman deliline yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 netle\u015ftirmesidir.\n\nBu yaz\u0131da a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki hususlar ele al\u0131nmaktad\u0131r:\n\nUzman delili ile sekt\u00f6rel tecr\u00fcbe aras\u0131ndaki fark\n\nMahkemelerin \u00e7eli\u015fen uzman g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerini nas\u0131l de\u011ferlendirdi\u011fi\n\nUzmanlardan ve taraflardan beklenen a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131k ve ispat seviyesi<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u0130n\u015faat uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131, \u00e7o\u011fu zaman teknik, programatik ve mali konular i\u00e7erir. Gecikme analizleri, verim kayb\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmeleri ve quantum hesaplar\u0131, mahkemelerin do\u011frudan uzmanl\u0131k alan\u0131na girmeyen teknik meselelerdir. Bu nedenle uzman bilirki\u015fi delili, mahkemelerin karar vermesinde merkezi bir rol oynar. Ancak mahkemeler, uzmanlar\u0131n karar verici olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yaln\u0131zca teknik konularda yard\u0131mc\u0131 olduklar\u0131n\u0131 s\u00fcrekli olarak vurgulamaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenle uzman delilinin de\u011feri, uzman ki\u015finin unvan\u0131ndan veya tecr\u00fcbesinden ziyade, kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 metodoloji, varsay\u0131mlar ve muhakeme s\u00fcrecinin a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s Objection<\/strong> Claimant\u2019s Response<\/strong> Court\u2019s Assessment<\/strong> Conclusion<\/strong> General Observation: This judgment confirms the limited circumstances in which courts will BackgroundThe parties entered into a JCT Design and Build contract on 10 November 2022 for theconstruction of a leisure and retail centre in Bishop Auckland. After completion, disputesarose concerning payment applications, entitlement to extensions of time (EOT), andliquidated damages (LADs). The dispute was referred to adjudicator Kevin Shilcock. Adjudicator\u2019s Decision (17 January 2025)– The Defendant\u2019s…<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4241,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kadence_starter_templates_imported_post":false,"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14,6,10,53],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3927","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-adjudication","category-claims","category-international","category-lang-en"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3927","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3927"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3927\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4245,"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3927\/revisions\/4245"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4241"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.equitas-consulting.com\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
The Defendant argued that the adjudicator introduced new \u201cfair and reasonable\u201d rates and
re-measurements without giving the parties an opportunity to comment. This was alleged
to breach the principles of natural justice. It was also claimed that the adjudicator failed to
provide sufficient reasoning, making the decision unenforceable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Claimant submitted that the adjudicator was entitled to apply his expertise in reaching
a gross valuation based on the parties\u2019 submissions and contract terms. Most of the
adjudicator\u2019s valuations were more favorable to the Defendant. The objections were
excessively detailed and did not amount to a substantial injustice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The adjudicator\u2019s task was to determine the overall valuation of the payment application,
not individual rates. Using different rates within the range provided by the parties did not
amount to a breach of natural justice. The discrepancies raised by the Defendant accounted
for only 0.2% (approx. \u00a32,600) of the valuation and were insignificant. Conversely, the
adjudicator\u2019s approach benefited the Defendant by over \u00a3200,000. Therefore, no serious or
material injustice was established.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court held that the adjudicator\u2019s decision was valid and enforceable. The Claimant\u2019s
application for enforcement was granted, and the Defendant was ordered to make payment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
intervene in adjudicator\u2019s decisions \u2013 only in cases of serious procedural breaches or
manifest injustice.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"