Articles

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Harding v Paice & Springall (1 December 2015) contains important guidance for adjudicators and party representatives about the extent to which there can be subsequent adjudications covering similar ground to that covered in earlier adjudications.

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.

We know that the Holy Grail, in the construction industry, is getting paid. Are we any closer to finding this legendary chalice and getting the money?

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: [2015] UKSC 67. 

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?