The full text of articles is available to Adjudication Society members only. If you are a member, please log in if you have not already done so. If you would like to join the Society, click here.
The Committee is continuing to make progress on our plans for the year. We plan to launch the new website in time for the annual AGM and conference, so do remember to email me any thoughts you have so we can incorporate them.
The wait for the commencement of the Construction Contracts Act 2013 continues. As has been set out before in this newsletter, the legislation was introduced as a private member's Bill back in 2010.
I usually prefer to use this editorial slot to introduce readers to the content of the newsletter. In this, my final newsletter, I am however, going to depart from the norm and use this editorial to focus on case law.
It continues to be our experience and I am sure that of many reading this article that Contractors in the midst of pulling out all the stops to win a Contract and concentrating on the two features most coveted by Clients i.e. time and money, that the Contract document eventually signed up to is not given the scrutiny it should be. It is all too often lost in a drawer or cabinet and is generally brought back into the light of day as a reactive response to an issue.
On 1 October 2011 LDEDC Act came into force for all construction contracts made after that date. It amended the old HGCRA, not by much in respect of adjudication but it brought in a fundamental change in respect of payment. The draftsmen of standard form contracts were on the ball and the amended standard contracts were available for the 1 October 2011 deadline. The industry does not, however, adapt readily to change.
In considering the relationship between BIM and the standard contract documents we come up against a number of issues. First, what status should we attribute to our BIM protocols and procedures? Secondly, what status should be attributed to the information produced by those procedures? and Thirdly, what should we say about the resolution of inconsistencies and ambiguities within the information produced for BIM or between that information and other information or procedures?
Adjudication under the Construction Acts(s) in the UK is approaching its 20th anniversary and it can be anticipated, in celebration of that august event, that many reflections upon its efficacy will soon be put into print.
Following the TCC’s decision in ISG Construction Ltd v Seevic College [2014] EWHC 4007 (TCC) it did not take long for the ingenuity of practitioners to come to the fore in seeking to find a solution to what could be perceived as one contracting party gaining an unfair advantage as a resu
I set out in the previous newsletter what the committee’s plans were for the coming year and am pleased to report that progress has been made on nearly all fronts.
On 1 February 2015, the Professional Negligence Lawyers Association launched a voluntary pilot scheme for the adjudication of professional negligence claims brought against solicitors, up to a maximum claim value of £100,000 (the Adjudication Scheme Trial).
Adjudicator’s decisions under the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 (“HGCRA96”) are enforceable almost as of right.
This is the first of a series of articles in which I will explore the challenges that will arise from the implementation of Building Information Modelling (“BIM”) for those involved in dispute resolution.
Construction payments legislation introducing statutory adjudication was passed in the Republic of Ireland in July 2013. On the foot of this, and other, developments, the Republic of Ireland region of the Adjudication Society was established in January 2014.
In Peterborough City Council v Enterprise Managed Services [2014] EWHC 3193 (TCC), the Technology and Construction Court made an interesting observation about dispute resolution clauses: the effect of which may differ according to whether the final dispute resolution procedure is litigation and arbitration.
"Can a party be prevented from referring a dispute to Adjudication?" This was Lord Woolman's summary of the question posed in T Clarke (Scotland) Limited v Mmaxx Underfloor Heating Limited – which was also described by him as a "novel point".
If you Google my name (so I am told as I obviously wouldn’t do that myself…), I’m nowhere to be seen. The first hit you get is the former lead male in the Royal Ballet (the name is where the similarities end) and an English General who took a pounding from the Scots in 1745.
This article considers the implications of a Party referring a dispute to adjudication concerning a quotation for a compensation event which has been treated as having been accepted, in accordance with the deeming provisions of Core Clause 6 of the NEC3 Form of Contract.