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.
Summer is upon us and change is afoot, for example and much to the despair of Martin Potter, England has a new cricket captain who hopes to rally his team and bring about a new dawn. Similarly the Construction Industry and in particular the dispute world is about to encounter change.
As it is now 10 years since the Adjudication Reporting Centre, at Glasgow Caledonian University was launched, it was only fitting that on the 12th of June 2008 the launch preview of the latest ARC report was held there.
Those new to Dispute Boards, particularly those serving as Dispute Board Members make the fundamental mistake of confusing a Dispute Board Decision with that of an Arbitration Award. The two are different.
I am pleased that my original article obviously struck a chord with many readers, and grateful to Lucy for selecting and printing two thought provoking replies – from Steve Rudd and Jeremy Hackett.
Lucy has gone on a long, well deserved holiday and has delegated the compilation of this issue to me. As our holidays overlapped, I may have missed a contribution or two - I apologise now if I have.
It is not often that something exciting happens in the rather arcane world of project delay analysis. Mostly the principles to be applied in ascertaining a contractor’s entitlement to extension of time have evolved at a geological pace and with little assistance from the Courts.
Seldom is it possible to respond for the call for articles for the adjudication society newsletter with such pleasure. The judgment of Mr Justice Akenhead handed out on the 27th of February 2008 is such an instance. The parties were Cantillon Limited against Urvasco Limited.
A fundamental problem when representing a party is that you do not know how the Adjudicator will apply the rules of evidence.
Adjudication under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act has now been with us for 10 years. Several books have been published in the area, but ever increasing case law has meant that some of these books are now out of date.
Dispute boards have been used on major international projects for some years, although it is only recently that dispute boards have become widely recognised.
My first task is to apologise for the lateness of this Newsletter which is directly attributable to my involvement in one of the Wembley trials. The delay in the issue of this Edition is just one of the many consequences of that lively project.