Monthly Archives: March 2009

REUTERS | Mike Hutchings

It is rare to see an individual (or a couple, as in Shaw v Massey) arguing the residential occupier exclusion (section 106 of the Construction Act 1996) applies to their contract. This is because nowadays all the commonly used standard form contracts contain or incorporate an adjudication clause. Therefore, even if an individual is, strictly speaking, a residential occupier within the meaning of section 106, they will have contractually agreed to adjudicate any dispute that arises. Continue reading

REUTERS | Jason Lee

What happens if your construction contract contains adjudication provisions that do not comply with the Construction Act 1996 (Act)? “That’s easy”, you say, “the Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998 (Scheme) applies because section 108(5) of the Act says that if the contract does not comply with section 108(1) to (4), the adjudication provisions of the Scheme apply.”

Here comes the tricky question: does the Scheme substitute the contractual adjudication provisions in whole or only in part? Continue reading

REUTERS | Aly Song

In the House of Commons last night, during the adjournment debate on blacklisting in the construction industry, the Government Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs, Mr Pat McFadden, confirmed that the Consulting Association, run by Ian Kerr, will be prosecuted under the Data Protection Act 1998 for compiling its database of blacklisted individuals. Continue reading

REUTERS | Aly Song

The TCC’s recent judgment in Thermal Energy Construction Ltd v AE&E Lentjes UK Ltd must have given some adjudicators a bit of a fright. The TCC refused to enforce an adjudicator’s decision despite previous case law (upheld in the Court of Appeal) that an adjudicator’s decision can only be challenged for a failure to give reasons in “extreme circumstances”.

So what made this case so extreme and are there any lessons to be learnt? Continue reading

REUTERS | Petar Kujundzic

The construction industry has been making the headlines again in the past week, but for the wrong reasons. An investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has uncovered a database containing details on 3,213 construction workers, which was used by over 40 construction companies to vet individuals for employment. Continue reading

REUTERS | Jason Lee

I was the adjudicator at a mock adjudication hosted by Collyer Bristow recently. The dispute was between a contractor, Q (the referring party) and the employer, L (the responding party). Q claimed L owed it £400,000, which L denied. L argued:

  • There was no contract “in writing“, so the dispute could not be referred to adjudication and the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction.
  • There was a risk of bias because of an alleged relationship between the adjudicator and Mr Jones, an employee of the referring party.

Sound familiar? This post looks at the “no contract” point. Continue reading

Share this post on: