Articles

Call me a sceptic but in November 2009, when the Local Democracy and Economic Development Act 2009 received Royal Assent, I did not believe that the new payment regime would necessarily translate into a reduction in the number disputes over payment within the construction industry.

Although not the subject of a formal complaint, I came to hear about a “grumble” recently concerning how “cosy” the adjudicator and the Responding Party’s representative had appeared during the course of an adjudicator.

Whilst reading the James Golden’s article in the ‘Back to Basics” series, the crooning voice of Frank Sinatra popped into my head – not because of any particular likeness between James and Frank (although I have never seen the former in a trilby) but because this is the valedictory article in th

Hindsight is a wonderful thing! We are all too well aware of mistakes made on previous projects and the consequences of those mistakes, but how many of us will put that past experience to good use and learn from our mistakes?

This is my final article on the basics of adjudication. My aim is to put any alleged complexities of adjudication in perspective and, as far as possible, empower those of us that work in construction, and are only occasional users of adjudication, to understand and be capable of entering into and completing the adjudication process without specialist advice.

I saw a complaint recently regarding an adjudicator who had reached a decision in respect of a valuation dispute. The essence of the complaint was that the adjudicator had been lazy.

The question of whether a party can be prevented from referring a dispute to adjudication is one that the courts have had to deal with only infrequently.

It sometimes seems to me that we are in the Mad Hatter’s World (or, maybe even worse, the Dormouse’s World!) when we deal with the payment provisions of the new ‘Construction Act’ (i.e. the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act, 2009). Why has something that should be so simple become so complex?

The entire rationale for adjudication is that it is intended to produce a “rough and ready” brand of justice for the construction industry. In theory, at least, an adjudicator cannot finally determine the rights of the parties but is instead intended to provide a decision by which disputes can be determined on a provisional interim basis.

This is my sixth article on the basics of adjudication for lay users. In this article, I am going to try to demystify issues surrounding Meetings, Site visits and Witnesses.

I became aware of a complaint recently regarding alleged bias against an adjudicator. One school of thought is that such complaints should be left for the Court to deal with.

Some of you will be aware of the judgment of the Court of Appeal published last November. This case, Andrew Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, concerned the failure the solicitors of Andrew Mitchell to file a costs budget on time.

Qatar is now the richest country in the world by GDP per capita; which stands at a staggering USD102,000.00.

The theme for this quarter’s edition of the newsletter – by accident rather than design – is ‘underhand tactics’ - whether through the vexatious use of multiple adjudications, breaches of natural justice, bias or just plain corruption.

In 1996 Parliament passed the Construction Act. This included a requirement that all construction contracts contained provisions allowing either party to call for adjudication of any dispute arising between the parties. Any construction contract thus had to include appropriate clauses or, if it did not, then the Scheme for Construction Contracts would apply – thus imposing conditions.

For the adjudicators reading this article, I appreciate life is challenging.

This is my fifth article on the basics of adjudication.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Adjudication Society, some of us are pleased that we have avoided the cold, frost and snow of our usual winters.