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.
An apology: The article “Trends in Adjudication” in February’s Newsletter was wrongly ascribed and Table 2 therein was incorrect. The article was written by Janey Milligan, Managing Director of Construction Dispute Resolution. The correct Table 2 is below.
The concept of Adjudication in its present guise is 10 years old and heading for its teenage years. I am sure everyone will agree that what we have now it a vastly different animal to what we all anticipated we were about to get.
It is not uncommon to hear negative comments from parties or their representatives based upon their experiences of adjudication. Some of the most common of such views relate to the cost of the process.
Complaints series
This is the second in our series of articles dealing with complaints against adjudicators.
Complaint No.2 – “the adjudicator failed to give reasons or gave inadequate reasons”
Many readers will know me as a Party Representative, in which capacity I have been privileged to meet and learn from several eminent Adjudicators, Solicitors and Barristers.
Many readers will know me as a Party Representative, in which capacity I have been privileged to meet and learn from several eminent Adjudicators, Solicitors and Barristers.
Established in 1998, Glasgow Caledonian University is home to the Adjudication Reporting Centre.
This edition of the Newsletter is, I think, particularly interesting. The theme might be said to be “complaints.”
The Society’s sixth annual conference took place on 15th November 2007 in London.
A belated and happy new year to all members, I hope the year will be a prosperous one despite the continued doom and gloom that is reported in the media.
The London Region held the second part of its myths and legends panel event at the offices of Nabarro in November 2007 and we once again managed to assemble an expert panel representing the complete life cycle of an adjudication.
It is well known that, following the case of Hershel Engineering Limited v Breen Property Limited [2000] EWHC TCC 178, section 108 of the Housing Grants Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 means exactly what it says.
I must open this edition of the Newsletter with an apology to JR Hartley – although I tried very hard to include his article on complaints against adjudicators in the last edition, I managed to fail.
For the first part of this article, please see the July edition of the Newsletter.
Is an adjudicator’s decision issued after the Scottish Scheme’s 28 day time limit enforceable if no extension had been granted before the 28th day?
Time flies as I approach the end of my first year in the chair of the Society. It is a year in which much has happened and the work behind the scenes carried out on behalf of the Society continues via the tireless efforts of dedicated individuals at executive and regional level.
On 19th September the London Region welcomed John Sheils of Shadbolt who gave an excellent talk entitled “The Liability of Adjudicators”. John admitted that, when first asked to talk on this subject, considering the wording of s.108(4) of the HGCRA, he wondered how he was going to fill an hour.
We continue to seek more contributors. Please will you talk with or email Lucy Garrett or Glenn Godfrey if you would like information about contributing or if you would like to see particular topics or themes explored in future editions.
Ever since the decision of the Technology and Construction Court in Picardi v Cuniberti [2003] BLR 487, employers who enjoy “residential occupier” status within the meaning of s.106 Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 have attempted to evade the consequences of an unfavourable c