I wonder what Mr. Bumble would make of the payment provisions of our current Construction Act.
In the construction and engineering sectors expert evidence is often adduced in dispute resolution processes. One finds reliance on expert evidence in court proceedings, arbitration, adjudication, dispute boards, expert determination and mediation.
The pressures on adjudicators to perform to high standards, whilst under increasing scrutiny from parties and their professional representatives, can be immense. Adjudicators, even the most experienced should not be complacent and should endeavour to keep ahead through regular CPD. ANBs have a duty to ensure adjudicators they appoint are appropriately qualified and able. It follows that they should endeavour to ensure adjudicators have ongoing access to practical, competency based training.
The fast evolving nature of the law of adjudication means that it’s important to continually review related guidance, and early in 2016 I was asked by RICS to chair a working group tasked with producing the fourth edition of the guidance note.
I was talking recently to an ex-adjudicator. We spoke at length about some of the issues in his life that caused him to decide he would no longer be an adjudicator.
The repeal of s.107 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 has created some problems of its own, and until recently there has been little guidance from the courts for adjudicators faced with a dispute arising from an oral contract. This article considers those problems and how an adjudicator might tackle them, based on lessons to be learned from recent cases.
The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 ('Late Payment Act') implies a number of terms into commercial contracts for the supply of goods and services.
Adjudicators may generally be said to pursue twin objectives; one inward-looking and subjective and the other outward-looking and objective; though both are related, and are essential to achieving an acceptable result of the adjudication process.
Statutory construction adjudication is now part of the Irish legal landscape following the commencement of the 2013 Construction Contracts Act at the end of July, which will now apply to all construction contracts (includes the appointment of construction professionals) entered into after 25 July 2016.
The idea for the Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol came at a talk given by me and Peter Johnson to the SCL in June 2000. It seemed to us that certain issues came up time and time again in disputes about delay and disruption, and that it might be a good idea to commit to writing some suggested answers to those recurring questions.
<< I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.>> Thomas A. Edison
If you examine the cases on the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 payment provisions this quote may be apposite.
So you’ve won the adjudication and the other side won’t comply with the decision…now what?
During a period whilst working in the USA, an Architect became involved with the design of skyscrapers on fast track programmes. Through that experience, it became apparent to him that if all the parties worked together collaboratively, the construction process could be planned in advance and then carried out to an agreed schedule.
Jaberwocky was a nonsense poem written by Lewis Carroll. We can at least date nonsense back to 1872, way before the Construction Act payment provisions.
In this case, the Claimant (“Cofely”) obtained an order that the First Defendant (“the Arbitrator”) be removed from an ongoing arbitration between Cofely and the Second Defendant (“Knowles”) pursuant to section 24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the Act”), on the grounds that circumstances existed which gave rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality.