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.
Those new to Dispute Boards, particularly those serving as Dispute Board Members make the fundamental mistake of confusing a Dispute Board Decision with that of an Arbitration Award. The two are different.
I am pleased that my original article obviously struck a chord with many readers, and grateful to Lucy for selecting and printing two thought provoking replies – from Steve Rudd and Jeremy Hackett.
An apology: The article “Trends in Adjudication” in February’s Newsletter was wrongly ascribed and Table 2 therein was incorrect. The article was written by Janey Milligan, Managing Director of Construction Dispute Resolution. The correct Table 2 is below.
The concept of Adjudication in its present guise is 10 years old and heading for its teenage years. I am sure everyone will agree that what we have now it a vastly different animal to what we all anticipated we were about to get.
It is not often that something exciting happens in the rather arcane world of project delay analysis. Mostly the principles to be applied in ascertaining a contractor’s entitlement to extension of time have evolved at a geological pace and with little assistance from the Courts.
Seldom is it possible to respond for the call for articles for the adjudication society newsletter with such pleasure. The judgment of Mr Justice Akenhead handed out on the 27th of February 2008 is such an instance. The parties were Cantillon Limited against Urvasco Limited.
A fundamental problem when representing a party is that you do not know how the Adjudicator will apply the rules of evidence.
Adjudication under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act has now been with us for 10 years. Several books have been published in the area, but ever increasing case law has meant that some of these books are now out of date.
Dispute boards have been used on major international projects for some years, although it is only recently that dispute boards have become widely recognised.
My first task is to apologise for the lateness of this Newsletter which is directly attributable to my involvement in one of the Wembley trials. The delay in the issue of this Edition is just one of the many consequences of that lively project.
The Society’s sixth annual conference took place on 15th November 2007 in London.
A belated and happy new year to all members, I hope the year will be a prosperous one despite the continued doom and gloom that is reported in the media.
The London Region held the second part of its myths and legends panel event at the offices of Nabarro in November 2007 and we once again managed to assemble an expert panel representing the complete life cycle of an adjudication.
It is not uncommon to hear negative comments from parties or their representatives based upon their experiences of adjudication. Some of the most common of such views relate to the cost of the process.
Complaints series
This is the second in our series of articles dealing with complaints against adjudicators.
Complaint No.2 – “the adjudicator failed to give reasons or gave inadequate reasons”
Many readers will know me as a Party Representative, in which capacity I have been privileged to meet and learn from several eminent Adjudicators, Solicitors and Barristers.
Many readers will know me as a Party Representative, in which capacity I have been privileged to meet and learn from several eminent Adjudicators, Solicitors and Barristers.
Established in 1998, Glasgow Caledonian University is home to the Adjudication Reporting Centre.
This edition of the Newsletter is, I think, particularly interesting. The theme might be said to be “complaints.”