Monthly Archives: April 2011

REUTERS | Mike Blake
April 12, 2011

Adjudicator using own knowledge and experience (again)

Last month, in Paton and another, Re Judicial Review, Lord Bannatyne enforced an adjudicator’s decision even though the adjudicator had relied on his own knowledge and experience in arriving at certain conclusions. Now the Scottish court has been asked the same question again (in SGL v RBG) but this time Lord Glennie refused to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.

Why did the court arrive at two different outcomes when, on the face of it, it was being asked the same question, arising out of the same type of allegation?  Continue reading →

REUTERS | Ahmad Masood
April 11, 2011

Terminating a building contract and mistaken motives

Terminating a contract is not for the faint hearted. If you terminate for the wrong reasons, you can find yourself having to pay a contractor’s lost profits or an employer’s additional completion costs and a contractor’s wrongful suspension can lead to an employer terminating the contract altogether.

But if the mistake is a genuine one, will attempts to suspend or terminate always give the other party the upper hand? Continue reading →

REUTERS | Robert Pratta
April 8, 2011

Ask the team: is there an implied right to revoke a copyright licence?

A professional consultant often produces important documents relating to a project, many of which are subject to copyright, such as architects’ plans or engineering schematics. This is valuable material, which clients derive obvious benefits from. Accordingly, the parties to a professional appointment usually negotiate specific provisions relating to copyright material; but what happens if the parties fail to agree the terms of an appointment? Continue reading →

REUTERS | Eric Thayer
April 5, 2011

Adjudication Latham-style: is this how it was meant to be?

It was always about cash flow. That’s what Sir Michael Latham said (and Lord Denning before that). Cash-flow was (and remains) the “lifeblood of the industry”.

Somewhere in the last 12 years the cash-flow message seems to have gotten lost in the complexity and detail of many of the construction disputes that are referred to adjudication. As a consequence, the process that we generally refer to as adjudication is a far cry from the process I believe Sir Michael envisaged when statutory adjudication was but a twinkle in his eye. Continue reading →

Share this post on: