Skip to main content

Articles

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.

Displaying 181 - 200 of 600

The Scottish Appeal Court’s decision clarifies the law in Scotland. Given that the 1996 Act applies UK-wide and the separate statutory Schemes for Scotland/England and Wales are very similar, this Scottish Appeal Court decision is also likely to be relevant to and referred to in enforcement proceedings south of the border in relation to English and Welsh adjudications.

In granting an injunction restraining the beneficiary from recovering money under the bond, the Court of Appeal said the beneficiary's call on the bond was "unconscionable" because it sought to undermine the temporary finality of an adjudicator's decision. If the beneficiary disagreed with the adjudicator's decision, he should refer the dispute to a court or tribunal under the dispute resolution clause in the applicable contract.

The Construction Act allows the parties to agree who should pay the adjudicator’s costs. The Scheme for Construction Contracts makes provision for the adjudicator to be paid a reasonable amount and also sets out what should happen in certain specific circumstances, for example if the parties revoke the adjudicator’s appointment.

The last 6 months have certainly been the busiest period I have ever personally encountered in terms of adjudication proceedings.  The references to adjudication have been coming to me thick and fast since March, both as advocate and adjudicator, with little time to come up for air.  

Notes from our Chairman Richard Booth.

The last 6 months have certainly been the busiest period I have ever personally encountered in terms of adjudication proceedings.  The references to adjudication have been coming to me thick and fast since March, both as advocate and adjudicator, with little time to come up for air.  

Having recently re-decanted from my office to home for the second time in seven months, it struck me how working from home appears more “normal” than it did on 21st March 2020. It also prompted me to reflect on how differently I conduct adjudications now. For present purposes, I want to focus on three changes.

Notes from our Chairman Richard Booth.

This article surrounds the case of a 'smash and grab' adjudication which was very the subject of joined enforcement and part 8 proceedings before Waksman J in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) earlier this year.  

This article seeks to assess the degree to which the decisions in Grove have unloosened that knot, or merely entangled us in other, related, difficulties. 

Uncertainty about timing of the value adjudication has the potential to undermine the effectiveness of the amendments to the payment provisions of the Construction Act because it might be open to the payer to start a value adjudication and get a decision in its favour as quickly as the payee could enforce its right to payment of the notified sum.  

Following ISG Construction Ltd v Seevic College [2014] EWHC 4007 (TCC) most of us are all too familiar with the concept of default payment notices and subsequent ‘smash and grab’ adjudications.   

Notes from our Chairman Richard Booth.

To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making. (Otto Von Bismark, 1869)

I was recently talking over lunch with a solicitor who regularly represents small and medium sized contractors in adjudications. The direction of our conversation turned to the subject of adjudicators nominated by ANBs.

Back in the day, when adjudication enforcement cases were first coming before the courts, and practitioners and Judges were regularly grappling with issues which were new, in the legal sense of being without precedent or guidance, one of the major areas of contention, was what actually constituted the dispute in question. 

The year 2017 witnessed considerable development in case law on statutory adjudication in Malaysia.

Notes from our Chairman Richard Booth.

Another great conference! Well organised – especially occurring the day after the decision in Grove was handed down; could not have been much better timed.