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 seems that a chilly wind may be blowing through the corridors of adjudication enforcement at the Technology and Construction Court.
The last few months have seen very significant developments in the TCC, all of them good and all of which have had the enthusiastic support of TECBAR and TeCSA and the other users of the Court.
In April this year, the London Branch of the Society put forward to the national Executive Committee of the Society a paper (drafted by Delia Dumaresq) proposing that the adjudication Society itself consider establishing a training/qualification standard and code of practice for adjudicators.
Adjudication has been an outstanding success in so far as it has largely solved the problem that it was introduced for, which was to redress the balance between payer and payee by in troducing an objective independent certification of the sum due instead of an often subjective decision by either
It is often said that a particular contractual obligation has been waived so that a party can succeed in the teeth of what, apparently, he agreed to do.
The Society made its submission to the DTI following the Latham Review and this may be seen on the Society Website.
The Midlands Region held an evening talk on 23 June in which the question of the desirability and purpose of a Code of Conduct for adjudicators was debated.
I am a TOG! There I have come out. No press harassment, no blackmail, it was just something which I thought I had to do.
For those of you too young to remember (or indeed too old!) TOG stands for Terry (Wogan)'s Old Geezer.
A critical analysis of the judicial interpretation of Section 107 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
INTRODUCTION
It is a feature of any adjudication that a party might consider the adjudicator has made a slip or mistake in writing the decision, which requires correcting to avoid an injustice. Not unreasonable? So what are the injured party’s rights, if any, for the correction to be made?
Apologies to members for the delay in producing the first Newsletter of 2005. We feature three interesting articles in this issue and as always we have Nick Gould’s Case Law Update.
This paper was presented to delegates attending a CIARB [Scottish Branch] Advanced Adjudicator Tra
Tony Bingham spoke to an audience of 35 on the Blue Standard Approach to Adjudication. The event held at the Birmingham Chamber Commerce and Industry on 28 July attracted a mixture of existing members and new members and provided a forum for debating the role of the adjudicator.
The following is the script of question and answer panel session at recent CIARB Training day for Adjudicators.
Parties beware: The Inquisitorial Adjudicator!