Articles in the 2010/November Newsletter

Displaying 8 items
The highlight of this issue is a study into the recent history of adjudication, how the process used has varied over time and how it has been impacted by the strength of the construction industry.
INTRODUCTION The adjudication provisions in the 1996 Construction Act have been amended by the Construction Act 2009. Others have already written in the Newsletter about the substance of these changes. What do they mean for the skills which adjudicators need to decide the disputes referred to them?
The case of Price and Price v Carter [2010] EWHC 1451 TCC involved an application to seek permission to appeal under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, for an extension of time pursuant to CPR 62.9 and if granted an appeal against the award under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
Those of you who are fans of the Fast Show will remember Jesse, the character who came out of the loo or a barn and announced what he ‘had mostly been doing that week’. He may well have been deluded when he announced he had been living on a diet of rubber tyres but at least he knew what was going on in ‘Jesse world’.
Introduction The TCC has a bespoke and rapid procedure for dealing with adjudication business in section 9 of the TCC Guide. For straightforward enforcement proceedings, a claim under CPR Part 7 remains the correct route.
A complaint came across my desk recently regarding the amount of time an adjudicator had spent on an adjudication that had settled. The criticism was that the adjudicator had spent more time, and generated a higher fee, than was considered necessary.
Until relatively recently it had been the accepted position that the Notice of Adjudication framed and set the boundaries of any dispute referred to adjudication.