The full text of articles is available to Adjudication Society members only. If you are a member, please log in if you have not already done so. If you would like to join the Society, click here.
In the case of CN Associates (A Firm) –v– Holbeton Limited, CN Associates (“CN”) sought to summarily enforce the decision of an adjudicator.
Hearings or meeting are an integral part of almost all dispute resolution processes, particularly where evidence is to be given orally and tested by cross examination or questioning.
The subject closest to the heart of most adjudicators, i.e. payment of their fees, has not featured for a while so it seems to me time to put that right, particularly considering my recent experience in a challenging case.
We all know that adjudicators are allowed to get it wrong, providing that the question they answer incorrectly is the right one. However, this is of little comfort to a party who is on the receiving end of a decision that is wrong, either factually or legally.
Challenges to an Adjudicator's jurisdiction have been par for the course since the introduction of Adjudication. Some Respondents make challenges systematically in case they can find an argument to resist enforcement. The Courts, however, remain reluctant to uphold such challenges.
In Yuanda (UK) Co. Ltd -v- WW Gear Construction Ltd [2010] EWHC 720 (TCC), Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart has delivered an important new ruling, possibly one of the most significant decisions in construction law of 2010 so far.