Notes from our Chairman Tim Willis, particularly on Brexit.
This article examines some of the significant decisions that have been handed down by the courts in the past 2½ years and provides a ‘snippet’ on the legal principles laid down in these cases.
In adjudication last year’s ‘nasty’ was the unacceptable behaviour of the parties.
I was talking recently to a party who had lost rather badly in an adjudication.
The construction industry has become used to the mantra repeated in a number of cases, that the intention behind the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 as amended (“the Construction Act”) is to give effect to a “pay now, argue later” regime.
The Ireland Region of the Adjudication Society recently held its 4th annual conference at Dublin’s well known Croke Park venue. 2017’s conference was organised around the theme ‘I’m in an adjudication, get me out of here.’
This was considered and decided upon by Mr Justice Coulson in the recent Hutton Construction Limited v Wilson Properties (London) Limited  EWHC 517 (TCC) case.
In the construction and engineering sectors expert evidence is often adduced in dispute resolution processes. One finds reliance on expert evidence in court proceedings, arbitration, adjudication, dispute boards, expert determination and mediation.
The pressures on adjudicators to perform to high standards, whilst under increasing scrutiny from parties and their professional representatives, can be immense. Adjudicators, even the most experienced should not be complacent and should endeavour to keep ahead through regular CPD. ANBs have a duty to ensure adjudicators they appoint are appropriately qualified and able. It follows that they should endeavour to ensure adjudicators have ongoing access to practical, competency based training.
I wonder what Mr. Bumble would make of the payment provisions of our current Construction Act.
The repeal of s.107 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 has created some problems of its own, and until recently there has been little guidance from the courts for adjudicators faced with a dispute arising from an oral contract. This article considers those problems and how an adjudicator might tackle them, based on lessons to be learned from recent cases.
The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 ('Late Payment Act') implies a number of terms into commercial contracts for the supply of goods and services.
The fast evolving nature of the law of adjudication means that it’s important to continually review related guidance, and early in 2016 I was asked by RICS to chair a working group tasked with producing the fourth edition of the guidance note.
I was talking recently to an ex-adjudicator. We spoke at length about some of the issues in his life that caused him to decide he would no longer be an adjudicator.
<< I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.>> Thomas A. Edison
If you examine the cases on the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 payment provisions this quote may be apposite.