Articles

The theme of this month’s newsletter is adjudication rules.  We have articles on the TeCSA and CEDR rules and, probably most importantly, the Scheme courtesy of Jeremy Glover, Shona Frame and Mark Entwhistle respectively.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Scheme for Construction Contracts (Regulations) 1998 are by far the most commonly used set of rules applying to adjudications. Use of the Scheme has become, if anything, more commonplace over the years, with many standard forms of contract specifying it as the applicable set of rules. Thus, they represent not just the default procedure (under section 108(5) of the Construction Act), but also, increasingly, the rules of choice.

A novel twist is to be found in the CEDR Solve Rules for Construction Adjudication September 2008.

The orthodoxy that adjudicators’ decisions are not severable on enforcement was challenged by Mr Justice Akenhead last year in Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd [2008] EWHC 282 (TCC).

The life of an adjudicator can be a challenging one in light of the tactical manoeuvres adopted by parties and the many twists and turns that can occur in even the “average” adjudication process.

Mr Justice Coulson no doubt quite deliberately noted in 2007 that: "With challenges based on jurisdiction and natural justice difficult (although not of course impossible) to establish in practice, the resourceful losing party in adjudication has had to look elsewhere for a reason to argue that the adjudicator's decision should not be enforced."

If there one thing worse than having an adjudicator’s decision go against you, it’s that moment a few days later when you actually have to write out the cheque to the other side.

The orthodoxy that adjudicators’ decisions are not severable on enforcement was challenged by Mr Justice Akenhead last year in Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd [2008] EWHC 282 (TCC).

Complaints series