REUTERS | Eric Vidal
October 17, 2017

Can a party withdraw from adjudication part way through and what are the implications?

REUTERS | Eric Vidal
October 17, 2017

Can a party withdraw from adjudication part way through and what are the implications?

After a summer of writing about arbitration and experts, it is nice to turn my attention to adjudication for a change. As the observant will realise, this is my second adjudication case in a row!

Jacobs UK Ltd v Skanska Construction UK Ltd was a dispute all about the adequacy of Jacobs’ design services, which related to street lighting in Lewisham and Croydon. It highlights some interesting issues related to whether a party is entitled to withdraw from an adjudication and then start again. Continue reading →

REUTERS | David Bebber
October 11, 2017

Another “nail in the coffin” for the prevention principle?

On the face of it, the judgment in North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd is one to which you might say “so what”? The parties agreed in their contract to disregard the effect of any concurrent delay in assessing the contractor’s entitlement to an extension of time. Surprise surprise, the court gave effect to the amendment. You can envisage the headline:

“Court gives effect to parties’ agreement, yet again”.

However, the judgment is much more interesting for construction lawyers, as it provides guidance on some of my favourite quirks of construction law: concurrent delay, time at large and the prevention principle. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Suhaib Salem
October 10, 2017

Expert’s evidence was extraordinary and “shot through with breath taking arrogance”

For those of who have a weekly blog to populate with content, the court’s summer recess can prove to be a challenging time. It leads us to cast our net further afield looking for ideas and cases to highlight. That is why, this week, I’m looking at two cases from August, one a personal injury claim from the County Court in Leeds, the other an intellectual property dispute from the Chancery Division. What both have in common are some choice words about the parties’ expert evidence. I know Jonathan has looked at this topic twice in recent months but, as I said, we’ve had the summer recess and these comments are just too bloggable to be ignored! Continue reading →

REUTERS | Thomas White
October 3, 2017

“Ingenious arguments” fail to topple “smash and grab” award

It’s been a while since I’ve blogged about a payment notice case, and so the case of Jonjohnson Construction Ltd v Eagle Building Services Ltd caught my eye. Unfortunately, it’s another one of those cases that isn’t on BAILII, so not all of you reading this will have access to it. It’s a great shame that an increasing amount of cases aren’t appearing on BAILII because it means that not all practitioners get to read them. Anyway, I’m digressing… Continue reading →

REUTERS | Reuters
October 2, 2017

Who knows where the time goes?

Einstein famously said that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. The nature of time is not an easy concept to grapple with and I had a similar (albeit not quite so ethereal) experience preparing a recent seminar on the practical effect of the decision in Carillion Construction v Emcor Engineering Services relating to contiguous (or rather non-contiguous) extensions of time.  Continue reading →

REUTERS | Vasily Fedosenko
September 27, 2017

September 2017 digest: more NEC4

John Greenleaf Whittier, Barbara Frietchie:

“Up from the meadows rich with corn, clear in the cool September morn…”

We continued to produce new materials on NEC4 this month, with a new note and new Z clause on Option C of the ECC by Iain Suttie. Not to be outdone by a colleague, John Hughes-D’Aeth contributed 12 Z clauses, including ones covering confidentiality, copyright, data protection and third party rights. Finally, we published a note on the new design, build and operate contract by Ross Hayes. We haven’t finished yet, so watch this space!

It wasn’t that long ago that we were writing new content because of JCT 2016. This month, we published termination notices for use with the SBC 2016 and DB 2016, referring to clause 8.4.1 and clause 8.4.2. It seems FIDIC 2017 (or will it be 2018?) will be next, since we told you to expect the launch of the first of the new wave of FIDIC contracts in December, which will necessitate a whole raft of new content from us in early 2018.

Phew! Continue reading →

REUTERS | Dado Ruvic
September 27, 2017

Enforcing adjudication decisions against parties threatening insolvency

This post examines the legal and practical implications of enforcing adjudicator’s decisions against parties threatening insolvency.

The TCC recently considered the applicable principles in Bernhards Sports Surfaces Ltd v Astrosoccer4u Ltd. Judgment has been given and it is in the process of being reported. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Faisal Al Nasser
September 26, 2017

Don’t give a judge an excuse not to enforce you

As an adjudicator, you face a number of hurdles when you go about your daily business of being an adjudicator.

It starts before you even begin work, when you are first approached to be appointed to adjudicate on a matter, and continues throughout the dispute, right up to the crescendo of your involvement, when you hand down your decision.

As long as I have been involved in the process, parties have been coming up with ways of putting more and more hurdles in our way. The one thing that I always tell myself (and anyone else willing to listen to me, like my students) is that it is really important not to give a judge an excuse not to enforce your decision. One could extend that mantra, and say that it is really important that you don’t trip yourself up at any point along the way first. Continue reading →