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.
I heard of a grumble recently regarding the use of assistants by an adjudicator.
The recruitment of the Panel of adjudicators in the Republic of Ireland, which has been referenced in this newsletter before, is presently ongoing. Dr Nael Bunni, a well known Irish arbitrator and a Door Tenant at 39 Essex Chambers in London, has already been announced as Chair of the Panel of Adjudicators. His three-year term runs from July 2015. The application deadline for those who wished to be considered for appointment to the Panel was in mid September and a number of stages of the competition have been concluded at this stage, including shortlisting and interviews of candidates, although the final appointment of adjudicators to the panel has not yet occurred and there is no clear timetable for the conclusion of this process.
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.
Adjudication has been with us for nearly 20 years. It has generated a fair amount of case law. Yet Aspect v Higgins is the first time that adjudication has been considered at the highest level. Jennie Gillies, in the editorial for the September 2015 newsletter, referred to some of the consequences of the Supreme Court's decision. In this article I explore those consequences further and look at practical steps that both parties to a construction dispute might take to protect their interests.
Following the TCC’s decision in ISG Construction Ltd v Seevic College  EWHC 4007 (TCC) it did not take long for the ingenuity of practitioners to come to the fore in seeking to find a solution to what could be perceived as one contracting party gaining an unfair advantage as a result of the other’s failure to operate the payment provisions contained in a contract.
On 1 October 2011 LDEDC Act came into force for all construction contracts made after that date. It amended the old HGCRA, not by much in respect of adjudication but it brought in a fundamental change in respect of payment. The draftsmen of standard form contracts were on the ball and the amended standard contracts were available for the 1 October 2011 deadline. The industry does not, however, adapt readily to change.
The wait for the commencement of the Construction Contracts Act 2013 continues. As has been set out before in this newsletter, the legislation was introduced as a private member's Bill back in 2010. Some of the reasons for the delay to date have been set out previously, and do not need to be repeated here. Whilst concerns held by certain observers that the legislation would languish on the statute books and not become operational have receded, the belaboured manner in which progress has been made in seeing the Act go live is still causing considerable frustration.
The Committee is continuing to make progress on our plans for the year. We plan to launch the new website in time for the annual AGM and conference, so do remember to email me any thoughts you have so we can incorporate them.
We have decided to make some changes to the annual conference. The most significant is that we will now hold it every two years in London and in a region in the intervening years. Hopefully this will address members’ concerns that the Society is too London focused.
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?
I usually prefer to use this editorial slot to introduce readers to the content of the newsletter. In this, my final newsletter, I am however, going to depart from the norm and use this editorial to focus on case law.