On the 22nd February, the London Region assembled a top class panel from the world of adjudication for our “Myths and Legends of Adjudication” event. We managed to get representatives from the life cycle of an adjudication: representing the users, we had Alastair Easton of Skanska UK, for the lawyers we had Adam Constable of Keating Chambers, for the nominating bodies we had Martin Burns of the RICS Dispute Resolution Service and for the adjudicators, Franco Mastrandrea of Northcroft Management Services. As a last minute addition, we were lucky enough to have HHJ Peter Coulson QC representing the judiciary. As if the panel wasn’t strong enough already, we also obtained the services of Laurence Cobb of Taylor Wessing as chairman.
Although some may doubt that there are any myths and legends in our beloved adjudication, Robert Stevenson came up with 11 corkers. The blurb on the flyer, which questioned whether “adjudication is an invitation to ambush, yet it has done nothing to ensure sub-contractors are paid promptly” whetted the appetite for some lively debate.
Although the Chatham House Rule applied, I will attempt to summarise what was said whilst protecting the names of the guilty! Laurence started by putting the rather controversial question to our panellists, “adjudicators for the most part are a swarm of wannabes ill trained for the task they have to perform”, however I am very glad to report that all of our panellists considered this to most definitely be a myth. There was also praise for some of the current training initiatives. Perhaps the most topical question put to the panellists was “nominating bodies do not discharge their functions properly”, particularly as the RICS had recently come in for criticism in the TCC case of Cubitt Building & Interiors Ltd. v. Fleetglade Ltd (refer to the February edition of the newsletter). Laurence expertly put this question to the panel, including the judge in the case, Judge Coulson. Whilst not attributing any statements, it became clear that the RICS had actually appointed the adjudicator within the required timescale – that cleared that up then! There were also some vigorous discussions amongst the panel and the audience as to the extent that nominating bodies can, and should, take on board the representations of the parties when appointing an adjudicator.
In the end, we only managed to cover 5 of the 11 myths and legends and the London Region has therefore decided to hold “Myths and Legends of Adjudication – Part Deux” in November (refer to the last page for further details).
The London Region would like to thank all of our panellists for some excellent and often amusing contributions, our chairman for excellently steering us through the myths and legends and all those who added and contributed to the lively debate. Finally, special thanks must go to Taylor Wessing for their excellent hospitality!
Jonathan Cope