In considering the relationship between BIM and the standard contract documents we come up against a number of issues. First, what status should we attribute to our BIM protocols and procedures? Secondly, what status should be attributed to the information produced by those procedures? and Thirdly, what should we say about the resolution of inconsistencies and ambiguities within the information produced for BIM or between that information and other information or procedures?
We know that an adjudicator is entitled to get the law wrong. We also know that, provided the adjudicator answers the right question and does not breach the rules of natural justice, any decision reached will be binding on the parties and enforceable.
I set out in the previous newsletter what the committee’s plans were for the coming year and am pleased to report that progress has been made on nearly all fronts.
This is the first of a series of articles in which I will explore the challenges that will arise from the implementation of Building Information Modelling (“BIM”) for those involved in dispute resolution.
On 1 February 2015, the Professional Negligence Lawyers Association launched a voluntary pilot scheme for the adjudication of professional negligence claims brought against solicitors, up to a maximum claim value of £100,000 (the Adjudication Scheme Trial).
Construction payments legislation introducing statutory adjudication was passed in the Republic of Ireland in July 2013. On the foot of this, and other, developments, the Republic of Ireland region of the Adjudication Society was established in January 2014.
Adjudicator’s decisions under the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 (“HGCRA96”) are enforceable almost as of right.
Our first priority will be to maintain the levels of excellence we have achieved in certain areas.
This article considers the implications of a Party referring a dispute to adjudication concerning a quotation for a compensation event which has been treated as having been accepted, in accordance with the deeming provisions of Core Clause 6 of the NEC3 Form of Contract.
In Peterborough City Council v Enterprise Managed Services  EWHC 3193 (TCC), the Technology and Construction Court made an interesting observation about dispute resolution clauses: the effect of which may differ according to whether the final dispute resolution procedure is litigation and arbitration.
By Section 108(1) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, as amended by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, (the "Act") a party to a construction contract has the right to refer any dispute arising under the contract to adjudication.
Parliament did not provide for a mandatory enforcement regime.
"Can a party be prevented from referring a dispute to Adjudication?" This was Lord Woolman's summary of the question posed in T Clarke (Scotland) Limited v Mmaxx Underfloor Heating Limited – which was also described by him as a "novel point".
This issue arose from Clarke's application for an interim interdict (the Scottish equivalent of an injunction) to prevent Mmaxx from initiating any further adjudications against Clarke.
Although not the subject of a formal complaint, I came to hear about a “grumble” recently concerning how “cosy” the adjudicator and the Responding Party’s representative had appeared during the course of an adjudicator.
Call me a sceptic but in November 2009, when the Local Democracy and Economic Development Act 2009 received Royal Assent, I did not believe that the new payment regime would necessarily translate into a reduction in the number disputes over payment within the construction industry.
If you Google my name (so I am told as I obviously wouldn’t do that myself…), I’m nowhere to be seen. The first hit you get is the former lead male in the Royal Ballet (the name is where the similarities end) and an English General who took a pounding from the Scots in 1745.