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.
Much has already been written about the 2012 decision of the Court of Appeal in PC Harrington v Systech.
Some commentators have welcomed the Court of Appeal decision in PCH v Systech and suggest that its effect will be to improve the quality of adjudication decisions. Others despair that it ignores the practicalities of this swift, rough and ready procedure.
Unless you found yourself marooned on a desert island during 2012, it will not have passed your attention that the whole of the construction world suddenly got very excited in August.
The process of obtaining the services of an adjudicator has, from the very start of statutory adjudication in the UK, been a rather fraught affair.
This is my second article reviewing the basics of adjudication.
There is now a new executive committee for the society: Edward Quigg is senior vice-chairman, Tim Willis is junior vice-chairman and Theresa Mohammed has become honorary secretary.
Payment and adjudication in the Australian construction industry is governed by individual State and Territory legislation. Such legislation in Australia commenced on 26th March 2000, in New South Wales.
In PC Harrington Contractors Limited v Systech International Limited [2012] EWCA 1371 (Civ) handed down on 23 October 2012, the Court of Appeal confirmed that an Adjudicator is not entitled to be paid his fees where he commits an error of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice, with t
The extent to which an adjudicator can use his own knowledge and experience is of course not a new issue. It has been the subject of numerous cases, most recently a flurry of cases in the Scottish courts.
I was pleased to see that we have a new series for this newsletter called ‘Back to Basics’. This is welcome because, after 14 years of adjudication, complacency has grown. Adjudication is often seen as the only route for dealing with the dispute.
After much debate the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 of Malaysia received Royal Assent on 18 June 2012 . It came into force on the 22 June 2012, and so Malaysia now has a statutory payment and adjudication regime for construction contracts.
With the season of goodwill almost upon us, this double edition of the Adjudication Society’s newsletter provides something of the Past, Present, and Yet to Come reminiscent of Charles Dicken’s A Christmas Carol.
As many of you are aware from previous newsletters or otherwise, the Construction Contracts Bill was dramatically passed by the Irish Seanad (Upper House) in the dying hours of the last parliament.
A criticism sometimes levelled at us in the Adjudication Society is that we can seem to focus on the problems with adjudication rather than on how to use the process.
From time to time complaints arise regarding decisions containing grammatical or factual errors.
Some people believe (incorrectly) that a Black Hole and an Insolvent Company are one and the same thing.
In the November 2011 edition of this newsletter I wrote an article about a panel debate held on the ‘new’ payment provisions by the London and South East Region. One year on, I thought it was worthwhile reviewing how they are faring.
After much debate the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 of Malaysia received Royal Assent on 18 June 2012. [Rules of Malaysia, Act 746, Construction Industry Payment And Adjudication Act 2012.
The Northern Ireland Region of the Adjudication Society has followed with interest the progress of the Construction Contracts Bill through the Irish Oireachtas (parliament). The Bill includes payment and adjudication provisions similar to those in operation in the UK.
A complaint came across my desk recently regarding the failure of an adjudicator to declare a potential conflict of interest with a party representative.