Chantelle Vermeulen
As the leaves begin to turn and pumpkin-spiced everything reclaims its annual throne, adjudication too finds itself in a season of reflection. September brings not just crisp mornings and conker battles, but a fresh crop of commentary from our contributors — each offering a different shade of insight into the ever-evolving adjudication landscape.
Yosof Ewing sets the stage with “Weaponised Words,” a sharp critique of the term “smash and grab.” His argument is clear: language matters. When statutory rights are framed as moral failings, we risk distorting the narrative and undermining the legitimacy of lawful claims. Contractors aren’t gaming the system — they’re navigating it.
Oliver Hannan’s piece complements this by exploring the narrow scope for viable defences in smash and grab adjudications. His message is simple but sobering: if your payment notice isn’t compliant, the law offers little sympathy. Damian James takes the baton further, asking whether adjudication is drifting from its original purpose. Are we chasing technical wins at the expense of fair payment? It’s a question worth sitting with.
The deep dive into related disputes in PFI projects by Ted Lowery reminds us that multi-party adjudications may be contractually available, but they’re rarely straightforward. His analysis offers a practical lens on the challenges of coordination and coherence.
Phil Fidler and Andrew Singer KC bring a touch of storytelling charm in “Once Upon a Time…”, revisiting Employer-Subcontractor Design Agreements. Their piece is a gentle nudge to look back at tried-and-tested structures that might still serve us well today.
Jim Armstrong’s case note on Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association is a timely reminder that repeated specified defaults can trigger termination and provides clarity on termination clauses within the JCT.
Craig Halliday’s linguistic lens in “Should the Onomastic Term ‘Payment Certificate’ be Omitted…” returns us to the power of nomenclature. His call to align contractual language with statutory clarity is more than semantic housekeeping—it’s a strategic move to reduce adjudication pitfalls and reinforce legislative coherence.
And finally, Luke Forster’s piece on AI in adjudication brings us into the future. While technology promises speed and efficiency, it also demands human oversight. Without it, we risk losing the nuance and trust that adjudication depends on. Let’s not let the robots rake the leaves unsupervised.
So, as we settle into the season of scarves and schedules, let’s take a moment to appreciate the richness of this issue. It’s a reminder that adjudication, like autumn, is full of change — but also full of colour, character, and the occasional crunch underfoot.
Happy reading, and may your notices be timely and your disputes short-lived.
We are grateful for all the contributions. Please contact Bernadette Barker if you wish to contribute to the next edition.
Chantelle Vermeulen
Disclaimer
None of the articles in this Newsletter should be relied on as offering legal advice on any specific matter. The content of the articles are the views of the authors and not necessarily the views of the editors or of the Society.
^BACK | 