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.
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.
There are a limited number of books available dealing with the international FIDIC suite of standard form contracts. This new publication covering law and practice is, therefore, extremely welcome.
INTRODUCTION
In the middle of November 2009, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (“the Act”) was passed into law. Though it is not yet clear when it will come into operation, it includes several provisions that will impact upon both adjudication and payment arrangements in the UK construction industry.
18th June 2010 is the response deadline for the final and arguably the most significant public consultation dealing with implementation of Sir Michael Latham’s report on the operation of Part 2 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
We are all familiar with the saying that adjudication is a rough and ready process.
Frying tonight is a regular occurrence in our village. It is part of village life. The local chippy is open about as often as the days when a van used to come round delivering the fish and chips.
It came to my knowledge that a complaint was made recently that an adjudicator had “changed his mind” after a decision had been made. The complainant alleged that, following representations from the other party, the adjudicator altered his decision and had changed his mind.
Adjudication is not a form of dispute resolution that lends itself well to resolving extensions of time in the manner generally advanced in full scale litigation or arbitration.
The issue of what material can be considered by Adjudicators, whether that be material submitted by a Referring Party or defences put forward by Respondents, has come before the courts on a number of occasions. The position does now appear to have been clarified following a string of cases.
The Court of Appeal judgment, Platform Funding Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc [2008] EWCA civil 930, [2009] WLR 1016, is a majority judgment, which appears to turn commonsense upon its head. The facts are unusual.
On 13 October 2009 the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill 2008 (the “Bill”), which amends the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the “Housing Grants Act”) passed its third reading in the House of Commons.
This type of complaint is along the lines of “Why, oh why, did the adjudicator spend so much time, and incur liability for his fees, investigating his jurisdiction?”.
The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) launched its “Pathways to Fellowship” in 2007 and aims to roll out the modules during 2010.
This quarter’s newsletter starts with a Chairman’s Corner from Nicholas Gould containing some important news regarding the direction of the Society and the appointment of an Honorary President. I won’t ruin the excitement for you so please go and read it for yourselves now.