Adjudicators may generally be said to pursue twin objectives; one inward-looking and subjective and the other outward-looking and objective; though both are related, and are essential to achieving an acceptable result of the adjudication process.
Statutory construction adjudication is now part of the Irish legal landscape following the commencement of the 2013 Construction Contracts Act at the end of July, which will now apply to all construction contracts (includes the appointment of construction professionals) entered into after 25 July 2016.
Jaberwocky was a nonsense poem written by Lewis Carroll. We can at least date nonsense back to 1872, way before the Construction Act payment provisions.
In this case, the Claimant (“Cofely”) obtained an order that the First Defendant (“the Arbitrator”) be removed from an ongoing arbitration between Cofely and the Second Defendant (“Knowles”) pursuant to section 24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the Act”), on the grounds that circumstances existed which gave rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality.
On April 13, 2016 Minister Ged Nash signed the Commencement Order for the Construction Contracts Act 2013. The legislation will take effect from July 25, 2016, some 6 years after then Senator Quinn first introduced his Private Members Bill and 3 years after the legislation was passed in its final form by the Irish Parliament.
The Court’s decision in Deluxe Art & Theme Limited v Beck Interiors Limited  EWHC 238 (TCC) is likely to have significant ramifications for adjudications commenced under the Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998 (“the Scheme”) and parties, adjudicators and nominating bodies alike will have to take note and review their respective practices where appropriate.
During a period whilst working in the USA, an Architect became involved with the design of skyscrapers on fast track programmes. Through that experience, it became apparent to him that if all the parties worked together collaboratively, the construction process could be planned in advance and then carried out to an agreed schedule.
The Construction Contracts Act 2013 (the “CCA”) was passed as of the summer of 2013 but has not yet been commenced. At the time of writing this article, whilst the CCA has still to be brought into effect, substantial progress has been made.
Since adjudicators derive their jurisdiction from the construction contract between the parties, does it matter if the precise terms of the contract – or even the contract itself – cannot be identified by the referring party?
It is not often that the subject of penalty clauses rears its head in higher courts; the law has appeared pretty settled on the subject for years, if not decades. It is interesting then, that not one but two recent cases have been the subject of appeals (heard together) in the Supreme Court on this very subject:  UKSC 67.
We know that the Holy Grail, in the construction industry, is getting paid. Are we any closer to finding this legendary chalice and getting the money?
The decision of the Court of Appeal in Harding v Paice & Springall (1 December 2015) contains important guidance for adjudicators and party representatives about the extent to which there can be subsequent adjudications covering similar ground to that covered in earlier adjudications.
This is the third article in the series concerning the implications for adjudication of the introduction if BIM into projects.
The fourteenth annual conference of the Adjudication Society, held in conjunction with the Association of Independent Construction Adjudicators on the topic of “The rising costs of Adjudication and how to reduce them”, was held at the Radisson Blu Portman Hotel, London on 5th November 2015 in front of over 90 delegates.
The Holy Grail is getting paid in the construction industry.