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.
On 1 February 2015, the Professional Negligence Lawyers Association launched a voluntary pilot scheme for the adjudication of professional negligence claims brought against solicitors, up to a maximum claim value of £100,000 (the Adjudication Scheme Trial).
Adjudicator’s decisions under the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 (“HGCRA96”) are enforceable almost as of right.
This article considers the implications of a Party referring a dispute to adjudication concerning a quotation for a compensation event which has been treated as having been accepted, in accordance with the deeming provisions of Core Clause 6 of the NEC3 Form of Contract.
By Section 108(1) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, as amended by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, (the "Act") a party to a construction contract has the right to refer any dispute arising under the contract to adjudication.
Call me a sceptic but in November 2009, when the Local Democracy and Economic Development Act 2009 received Royal Assent, I did not believe that the new payment regime would necessarily translate into a reduction in the number disputes over payment within the construction industry.
Although not the subject of a formal complaint, I came to hear about a “grumble” recently concerning how “cosy” the adjudicator and the Responding Party’s representative had appeared during the course of an adjudicator.
In Peterborough City Council v Enterprise Managed Services [2014] EWHC 3193 (TCC), the Technology and Construction Court made an interesting observation about dispute resolution clauses: the effect of which may differ according to whether the final dispute resolution procedure is litigation and arbitration.
"Can a party be prevented from referring a dispute to Adjudication?" This was Lord Woolman's summary of the question posed in T Clarke (Scotland) Limited v Mmaxx Underfloor Heating Limited – which was also described by him as a "novel point".
If you Google my name (so I am told as I obviously wouldn’t do that myself…), I’m nowhere to be seen. The first hit you get is the former lead male in the Royal Ballet (the name is where the similarities end) and an English General who took a pounding from the Scots in 1745.
I saw a complaint recently regarding an adjudicator who had reached a decision in respect of a valuation dispute. The essence of the complaint was that the adjudicator had been lazy.
Whilst reading the James Golden’s article in the ‘Back to Basics” series, the crooning voice of Frank Sinatra popped into my head – not because of any particular likeness between James and Frank (although I have never seen the former in a trilby) but because this is the valedictory article in th
Hindsight is a wonderful thing! We are all too well aware of mistakes made on previous projects and the consequences of those mistakes, but how many of us will put that past experience to good use and learn from our mistakes?
This is my final article on the basics of adjudication. My aim is to put any alleged complexities of adjudication in perspective and, as far as possible, empower those of us that work in construction, and are only occasional users of adjudication, to understand and be capable of entering into and completing the adjudication process without specialist advice.
This is my sixth article on the basics of adjudication for lay users. In this article, I am going to try to demystify issues surrounding Meetings, Site visits and Witnesses.
I became aware of a complaint recently regarding alleged bias against an adjudicator. One school of thought is that such complaints should be left for the Court to deal with.
Some of you will be aware of the judgment of the Court of Appeal published last November. This case, Andrew Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, concerned the failure the solicitors of Andrew Mitchell to file a costs budget on time.
Qatar is now the richest country in the world by GDP per capita; which stands at a staggering USD102,000.00.
The theme for this quarter’s edition of the newsletter – by accident rather than design – is ‘underhand tactics’ - whether through the vexatious use of multiple adjudications, breaches of natural justice, bias or just plain corruption.