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.
This article surrounds the case of a 'smash and grab' adjudication which was very the subject of joined enforcement and part 8 proceedings before Waksman J in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) earlier this year.
This article seeks to assess the degree to which the decisions in Grove have unloosened that knot, or merely entangled us in other, related, difficulties.
Uncertainty about timing of the value adjudication has the potential to undermine the effectiveness of the amendments to the payment provisions of the Construction Act because it might be open to the payer to start a value adjudication and get a decision in its favour as quickly as the payee could enforce its right to payment of the notified sum.
Following ISG Construction Ltd v Seevic College [2014] EWHC 4007 (TCC) most of us are all too familiar with the concept of default payment notices and subsequent ‘smash and grab’ adjudications.
Another great conference! Well organised – especially occurring the day after the decision in Grove was handed down; could not have been much better timed.
To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making. (Otto Von Bismark, 1869)
The second part of an article begun in the Summer 2018 edition of this newsletter.
I was recently talking over lunch with a solicitor who regularly represents small and medium sized contractors in adjudications. The direction of our conversation turned to the subject of adjudicators nominated by ANBs.
Back in the day, when adjudication enforcement cases were first coming before the courts, and practitioners and Judges were regularly grappling with issues which were new, in the legal sense of being without precedent or guidance, one of the major areas of contention, was what actually constituted the dispute in question.
The year 2017 witnessed considerable development in case law on statutory adjudication in Malaysia.
Forgive me Mark Ruffalo (American actor) for slightly amending your quote to suit my purposes. The something in our industry is simply a payment.
Adjudication is the construction sector’s dispute resolution method of choice for several reasons. It is quick, comparatively simple, cost-effective and private.
Court judgments from adjudication cases are numerous, though not always significant in directing the practice of the process of adjudication or the practices of adjudicators.
There has been a recent trend of Insolvency Practitioners commencing Adjudication proceedings on behalf of an insolvent company in an attempt to recover the payment of monies against the insolvent company’s account.
The Elephant Test is a very important legal test, or, if it isn’t it should be. It goes like this; I can’t describe an elephant, but I know one if I see one. It is much easier than a written description. All you need is a picture or a visit to the zoo.
When I first got involved in adjudication, way back in 1998, I was aware of at least 20 organisations that claimed to perform the role of Adjudicator Nominating Body (ANB). Some of those ANBs have fallen by the wayside and no longer offer nomination services. Today, most parties seeking independent nominations of adjudicators apply to only a handful of ANBs.