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.
"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.
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.
Whilst reading the James Golden’s article in the ‘Back to Basics” series, the crooning voice of Frank Sinatra popped into my head – not because of any particular likeness between James and Frank (although I have never seen the former in a trilby) but because this is the valedictory article in that excellent series and the “end is here”. As these things always seem to go, I then couldn’t shift the tune and was plagued by “My Way” for the remainder of the afternoon.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing! We are all too well aware of mistakes made on previous projects and the consequences of those mistakes, but how many of us will put that past experience to good use and learn from our mistakes?
This is my final article on the basics of adjudication. My aim is to put any alleged complexities of adjudication in perspective and, as far as possible, empower those of us that work in construction, and are only occasional users of adjudication, to understand and be capable of entering into and completing the adjudication process without specialist advice.
The change of officers and leadership is imminent. There is a division of opinion as to whether there should be physical or electronic meetings. What matters is that there should be people who are sufficiently enthusiastic to be active in branches and committees.
I saw a complaint recently regarding an adjudicator who had reached a decision in respect of a valuation dispute. The essence of the complaint was that the adjudicator had been lazy. In particular, the complainant took issue with the fact that the adjudicator had set out the reasons for his finding on each item in dispute in a schedule that was attached to the main body of his Decision. The complaint was that the reasons were too brief.