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.
It is easy to lose sight of the fact that many construction disputes have less to do with buildings than with the rights and obligations of those who build them. This is why lawyers who have no construction background still end up specialising in project work.
Our two most recent events took place in October and were well attended.
17 October – Paper by Delia Dumaresq
Are recent Court of Appeal Decisions indicative of a sea change on enforcement or re-statements of established principles?
The Adjudication Society co-hosted with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators “An Evening with Sir Michael Latham” at the Ulster Reform Club in Belfast on Thursday 30 November.
This Newsletter comes to you just before the August break – perhaps some of you are just leaving on holiday to, say, the Sahara Desert – it would at least be cooler than London.
Our greatest disappointment is the lack of any progress in relation to amendments to the Act. The Society has always seen no reason why oral contracts should be excluded from the adjudication provisions. It is often the most vulnerable that enter into oral contracts.
This article covers recent decisions regarding judicial controls on the exercise of adjudicator’s powers.
CHALLENGE OF ADJUDICATOR’S DECISIONS – NATURAL JUSTICE
General
In Sandhu Menswear Company Limited and Woolworths Plc (5th June 2006, as yet unreported), in the High Court in Birmingham, HHJ Frances Kirkham had to rule as to whether Woolworths were liable to the claimants for the damage caused by a fire. The fire had been caused by third parties.
In this occasional column, we look at legal issues which are frequently raised by parties to adjudication (and indeed arbitration) and which are not necessarily fully understood. This time the subject is impossibility.
It’s about time that a new detailed construction law publication hit the shelves, and here it is. This book deals in detail with a wide range of current legal issues that arise in respect of construction contracts.
Many thanks to those of you who have been sending in your questions about various issues arising in adjudication to our panel of experts. The email address (which is also on the website) is qanda@ adjudication.org.
The main concern for adjudication continues to be the Government’s consideration of amendments to the Construction Act and the Scheme.
The Court of Appeal decision last year in Bowman -v- Fels not only provided very useful guidance for litigators but has also gone some way towards alleviating the concerns of other dispute resolvers, including adjudicators, about the extent of their obligations under UK anti-money launde
Increasingly the lie is being put to the notion that adjudication provides rough and ready justice, quickly and cheaply. It may be rough and ready. Whether it is justice depends upon your standpoint.
The appeal by Sir Roy Meadow has hit the headlines. Has this case anything to do with the day to day life of a professional who sometimes has to give advice? In my view, yes.
On 20 March 2006 Jackson J. gave judgment in M Rohde Construction v. Nicholas Markham David [2006] EWHC 814 (TCC). This case concerned a claim to enforce an adjudication decision. The application before Jackson J.
One of the relentless trends which has accompanied the march of Adjudication has been the increasing complexity and size of cases.
It seems that a chilly wind may be blowing through the corridors of adjudication enforcement at the Technology and Construction Court.
There is something rather satisfying about having to defend a claim which subsequently concludes with the claimant party paying out money to your defendant client. Can this desirable outcome be achieved within a single adjudication? What scope is there for a counterclaim?
In this edition of the Newsletter, we want to introduce a new idea which we hope will be of interest to all those involved in adjudication.
The DTI has published its proposals on changes to the Act and the Scheme following last years consultation. The major proposals concern the payment provisions. Sensibly they have taken the point that the payment procedure should start with an application for payment.