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.
The main concern for adjudication continues to be the Government’s consideration of amendments to the Construction Act and the Scheme.
The Court of Appeal decision last year in Bowman -v- Fels not only provided very useful guidance for litigators but has also gone some way towards alleviating the concerns of other dispute resolvers, including adjudicators, about the extent of their obligations under UK anti-money launde
In this edition of the Newsletter, we want to introduce a new idea which we hope will be of interest to all those involved in adjudication.
The DTI has published its proposals on changes to the Act and the Scheme following last years consultation. The major proposals concern the payment provisions. Sensibly they have taken the point that the payment procedure should start with an application for payment.
One of the relentless trends which has accompanied the march of Adjudication has been the increasing complexity and size of cases.
One of the relentless trends which has accompanied the march of Adjudication has been the increasing complexity and size of cases.
It seems that a chilly wind may be blowing through the corridors of adjudication enforcement at the Technology and Construction Court.
There is something rather satisfying about having to defend a claim which subsequently concludes with the claimant party paying out money to your defendant client. Can this desirable outcome be achieved within a single adjudication? What scope is there for a counterclaim?
The last few months have seen very significant developments in the TCC, all of them good and all of which have had the enthusiastic support of TECBAR and TeCSA and the other users of the Court.
In April this year, the London Branch of the Society put forward to the national Executive Committee of the Society a paper (drafted by Delia Dumaresq) proposing that the adjudication Society itself consider establishing a training/qualification standard and code of practice for adjudicators.
Adjudication has been an outstanding success in so far as it has largely solved the problem that it was introduced for, which was to redress the balance between payer and payee by in troducing an objective independent certification of the sum due instead of an often subjective decision by either
It is often said that a particular contractual obligation has been waived so that a party can succeed in the teeth of what, apparently, he agreed to do.
The Society made its submission to the DTI following the Latham Review and this may be seen on the Society Website.
The Midlands Region held an evening talk on 23 June in which the question of the desirability and purpose of a Code of Conduct for adjudicators was debated.
I am a TOG! There I have come out. No press harassment, no blackmail, it was just something which I thought I had to do.
For those of you too young to remember (or indeed too old!) TOG stands for Terry (Wogan)'s Old Geezer.
It is a feature of any adjudication that a party might consider the adjudicator has made a slip or mistake in writing the decision, which requires correcting to avoid an injustice. Not unreasonable? So what are the injured party’s rights, if any, for the correction to be made?