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 issue of what material can be considered by Adjudicators, whether that be material submitted by a Referring Party or defences put forward by Respondents, has come before the courts on a number of occasions. The position does now appear to have been clarified following a string of cases.
The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) launched its “Pathways to Fellowship” in 2007 and aims to roll out the modules during 2010.
This quarter’s newsletter starts with a Chairman’s Corner from Nicholas Gould containing some important news regarding the direction of the Society and the appointment of an Honorary President. I won’t ruin the excitement for you so please go and read it for yourselves now.
It is trite to state that the identification of the issues is a crucial activity in any adjudication.
Much gratitude should go to Liam Holder and Stephen Clarke of the Adjudication Society for all of their efforts in conducting the questionnaire survey. Please do have a look at the article below setting out the main findings.
Adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payments Act (“SOP Act”) appears to be the quickest and most cost-effective form of resolving construction–industry claims in Singapore.
The case of Jim Ennis Construction Limited v Premier Asphalt Ltd [2009] EWHC 1906 (TCC), which was reported last month in Nicholas Gould’s Case Notes Corner, considered the novel point of the date of accrual of the cause of action where a losing party to an adjudication subsequently comm
The Court of Appeal judgment, Platform Funding Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc [2008] EWCA civil 930, [2009] WLR 1016, is a majority judgment, which appears to turn commonsense upon its head. The facts are unusual.
On 13 October 2009 the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill 2008 (the “Bill”), which amends the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the “Housing Grants Act”) passed its third reading in the House of Commons.
This type of complaint is along the lines of “Why, oh why, did the adjudicator spend so much time, and incur liability for his fees, investigating his jurisdiction?”.
There are a number of changes in the air which will impact on business at the Technology & Construction Court (“TCC”) all of which will inevitably affect members of the Adjudication Society. It is too early to say quite what these changes will mean, but everyone should be aware of them.
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.
When a Contractor becomes entitled to reimbursement for delay to his works it is settled law that he may recover the return that he would have achieved on other work had his resources not been detained on the Works due to the delay. Amongst other heads of claim, that includes Head Office Overheads and Profit (HOP). The HOP element of such a claim is often a significant sum.
As disputes in relation to procurement and tendering are becoming more common both Contractors and Employers often consider whether or not an adjudication process would be an efficient way of resolving the disputes.
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.