Articles

Complaints series

Ever since the decision of the Technology and Construction Court in Picardi v Cuniberti [2003] BLR 487, employers who enjoy “residential occupier” status within the meaning of s.106 Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 have attempted to evade the consequences of an unfavourable c

We continue to seek more contributors. Please will you talk with or email Lucy Garrett or Glenn Godfrey if you would like information about contributing or if you would like to see particular topics or themes explored in future editions.

On 19th September the London Region welcomed John Sheils of Shadbolt who gave an excellent talk entitled “The Liability of Adjudicators”. John admitted that, when first asked to talk on this subject, considering the wording of s.108(4) of the HGCRA, he wondered how he was going to fill an hour.

Time flies as I approach the end of my first year in the chair of the Society. It is a year in which much has happened and the work behind the scenes carried out on behalf of the Society continues via the tireless efforts of dedicated individuals at executive and regional level.

For the first part of this article, please see the July edition of the Newsletter.

Is an adjudicator’s decision issued after the Scottish Scheme’s 28 day time limit enforceable if no extension had been granted before the 28th day?

I must open this edition of the Newsletter with an apology to JR Hartley – although I tried very hard to include his article on complaints against adjudicators in the last edition, I managed to fail.

It is well known that, following the case of Hershel Engineering Limited v Breen Property Limited [2000] EWHC TCC 178, section 108 of the Housing Grants Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 means exactly what it says.

Introduction