Articles in the 2008/June Newsletter

Displaying 8 items

My first task is to apologise for the lateness of this Newsletter which is directly attributable to my involvement in one of the Wembley trials. The delay in the issue of this Edition is just one of the many consequences of that lively project.

Dispute boards have been used on major international projects for some years, although it is only recently that dispute boards have become widely recognised.

A fundamental problem when representing a party is that you do not know how the Adjudicator will apply the rules of evidence.

Adjudication under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act has now been with us for 10 years. Several books have been published in the area, but ever increasing case law has meant that some of these books are now out of date.

Seldom is it possible to respond for the call for articles for the adjudication society newsletter with such pleasure. The judgment of Mr Justice Akenhead handed out on the 27th of February 2008 is such an instance. The parties were Cantillon Limited against Urvasco Limited.

It is not often that something exciting happens in the rather arcane world of project delay analysis. Mostly the principles to be applied in ascertaining a contractor’s entitlement to extension of time have evolved at a geological pace and with little assistance from the Courts.

The concept of Adjudication in its present guise is 10 years old and heading for its teenage years. I am sure everyone will agree that what we have now it a vastly different animal to what we all anticipated we were about to get.

An apology: The article “Trends in Adjudication” in February’s Newsletter was wrongly ascribed and Table 2 therein was incorrect. The article was written by Janey Milligan, Managing Director of Construction Dispute Resolution. The correct Table 2 is below.