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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I recently became aware of a complaint about an adjudicator who had not conducted a site inspection in a case that involved allegations of defective workmanship.
The Society has held two important meetings since our last newsletter was compiled; in November 2013 the twelfth annual conference was held in conjunction with the Association of Independent Construction Adjudicators and in January 2014 the second conference of the Adjudication Society for the Ir
As of 29 July 2013 the President of Ireland signed the Construction Contracts Act 2013 (“The Act”), enacting the long awaited legislation seeking to improve cash flow for sub-contractors within the construction industry and finally bringing a statutory right of adjudication to Ireland.
The resolution of disputes in both the domestic and international arenas has, over the years, relied heavily upon non-court processes, increasingly in recent times. The costs incurred by the parties involved in dispute resolution can be considerable, with relationships between them also being put at risk. The focus has, however, increasingly switched in more recent years from binding resolution by tribunal decision imposed upon parties, to a more co-operative and non-confrontational approach.
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.
As Nicholas Gould has already observed elsewhere in this newsletter, at present adjudication is not available in the Middle East and as a result dispute boards have become popular on construction projects in the region.