Articles

The orthodoxy that adjudicators’ decisions are not severable on enforcement was challenged by Mr Justice Akenhead last year in Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd [2008] EWHC 282 (TCC).

A novel twist is to be found in the CEDR Solve Rules for Construction Adjudication September 2008.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Scheme for Construction Contracts (Regulations) 1998 are by far the most commonly used set of rules applying to adjudications. Use of the Scheme has become, if anything, more commonplace over the years, with many standard forms of contract specifying it as the applicable set of rules. Thus, they represent not just the default procedure (under section 108(5) of the Construction Act), but also, increasingly, the rules of choice.

As disputes in relation to procurement and tendering are becoming more common both Contractors and Employers often consider whether or not an adjudication process would be an efficient way of resolving the disputes. 

When a Contractor becomes entitled to reimbursement for delay to his works it is settled law that he may recover the return that he would have achieved on other work had his resources not been detained on the Works due to the delay.  Amongst other heads of claim, that includes Head Office Overheads and Profit (HOP).  The HOP element of such a claim is often a significant sum.

The life of an adjudicator can be a challenging one in light of the tactical manoeuvres adopted by parties and the many twists and turns that can occur in even the “average” adjudication process.