Len Bunton

This is a response by Peter Morton to Chris Dancaster’s recent talk in Bristol:

“I have just read Chris Dancaster's talk on 13 December in Bristol, in particular the discussion on liens. As I could not attend the meeting I would like to make a number of brief points in connection with this.

1. Mr Dancaster is clearly against adjudicators taking a lien, however, as he or his colleagues appear never to have experienced a case of non- payment it is difficult to see how their view can be construed as an entirely objective one.

Welcome to all members to our first Newsletter 0f 2002.

I am very grateful to this month’s contributors for a wide range of views. We start the Year 2002 with a big bang –a wide range of commentaries on the adjudication process.

Future issues will feature further interesting contributions and I hope that more members will write in with comments on any issue - and don’t be frightened to air controversial views – this is the best way we can develop the adjudication process.

Apologies to all our readers for the long delay in issuing further Newsletters.

All rumours of the Editor going walkabout in Australia are unfounded – simply a long involvement in a dispute had meant my attention was fully occupied elsewhere for a number of months.

However its good to get back behind the keyboards and to pull together some interesting contributions again.

This months issue is a ”bumper” one with splendid papers from Rupert Choat, Fenella Mason and a lengthy case update from Nick Gould.

Members should be aware of the recent CIC publication “CIC Adjudication The First Forty Months “ available from the CIC 26 Store Street, London WC1E 7 BT.

Also the Construction Umbrella Bodies Adjudication Task Group have recently published “Guidance for Adjudicators “ (reviewed above by John Redmond).

The summer saw a flurry of new books on Adjudication which are all excellent additions to the adjudicators library.

Richard Anderson, Barrister has produced prolific text over the past few months and a brief review of his work follows.

I am pleased to issue the September Newsletter after a bit of a delay as we waited to finalise the proposed Conference, some details of which are included later. This month we again have some excellent contributions which cover a wide range of adjudication issues.

We have come to the view that the Newsletter should be issued bi monthly in order that we can have a regular series of articles and commentaries, on various and current issues, relating to the adjudication process.

The question put to members by the Editor by e mail) was :

“The Construction Industry in the UK seems to regard the Adjudication process as successful but based on the number of Adjudicator appointments made. Much research has been made into the number, scale and scope of appointments.

However it is felt in some quarters that the true test is whether or not the whole industry is in better shape, and whether or not the introduction of the legislation has improved the economic state of the industry.

SIMON TOLSON of Fenwick Elliott gets a grilling from the Editor !!

LB: You had another successful Fenwick Elliot Adjudication Review in November, what is your perception now of the market place as far as adjudication is concerned?

This issue sees the first of our quarterly Society Newsletters. Further issues will appear in April, July and October. Again we are grateful, in this issue, to a number of contributors as we try to cover new ground, and issues, emerging from the world of dispute resolution.

John Redmond presents his view on “Arbrication” and invites comments on the dispute resolution process of the not too distant future. Simon Tolson responds to some penetrating questions !!

As usual we have regional news and bits and pieces of interest to members - I hope !!.

The Editor interviews the construction team of DLA in their superb new Edinburgh office, on a number of issues. Many thanks to Fenella Mason and her team in the Scottish practice of DLA's Construction and Engineering Group for their assistance.

1. LB: As you are aware some of the ANBs are examining the capability of their adjudication panels. How much do you think today’s Adjudicator is different from when this process started five years ago?