Monthly Archives: March 2015

REUTERS | Ivan Alvarado
March 13, 2015

Payment rules reviewed by the back door of adjudication enforcement?

Ever since the payment rules in the Construction Act 1996 were amended, we have been waiting for parties to argue over them and for the TCC to give its guidance on them. Each year in January, we have suggested that this might be the year when that guidance would be forthcoming. Even at the start of this year we were saying the same thing, the only difference being that by the end of 2014, Edwards-Stuart J had handed down two judgments that dealt with a party’s failure to serve a pay less notice (Harding (t/a MJ Harding Contractors) v Paice and another and ISG Construction Ltd v Seevic College). Continue reading →

REUTERS | Carlos Barria
March 11, 2015

Design dilemmas in D&B

The practice of novating design consultants is now a ubiquitous feature of design and build (D&B) contracts in the UK. Over the last 20 years or so, informed by decisions such as Blyth & Blyth Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd, the wording of novation agreements has evolved to the stage of a largely market standard position, which is generally accepted by both contractors and consultants.  Continue reading →

REUTERS | Christian Charisius
March 10, 2015

“Manifest injustice” warrants partial stay of adjudication enforcement

By now, I’m sure you will have seen (or heard about) Edwards-Stuart J’s judgment in Galliford Try v Estura and will, no doubt, have formed your own view as to the implications for adjudication, both in terms of a party’s ability to start a counter adjudication following a “smash and grab” adjudication, and also with regard to issues that will be raised in enforcement proceedings.

While much may be written about the payment side of things, I rather covered that off when I wrote about  Edwards-Stuart J’s judgment in Harding v Paice and Jonathan addressed the issues  following Edwards-Stuart J’s judgment in ISG v Seevic. What I want to concentrate on are the “manifest injustice” points. Continue reading →

REUTERS | David Gray
March 6, 2015

Practical Law’s breakfast roundtable on adjudicator nomination

Last week I participated in Practical Law’s breakfast roundtable, Adjudication appointment tactics: The do’s and don’ts following recent case law. The roundtable was led by Fionnuala McCredie QC and Paul Bury, barristers at Keating Chambers, and Suber Akther, solicitor-advocate at Siemens plc, who were the legal team involved in Eurocom Ltd v Siemens plc.

The workshop explored the various tactics that parties may use when seeking to obtain adjudication appointments, looking at the issues from the perspectives of both the referring party and the responding party. Our discussions centred on the nomination process and the issues that arose in Eurocom. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Steve Crisp
March 4, 2015

Mediation, DABs and ADR in the Middle East (part two)

Taking up the challenge: the role of mediation, DABs and other ADR methods in the Middle East

Mediation and DABs

Last week, I looked at mediation and dispute adjudication boards (DABs) in the Middle East. This week, I will continue my thoughts by looking at other possible methods of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), before considering what may be next for ADR in the region. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Kham
March 3, 2015

Adjudication is suitable for disputes little and large

I recently blogged about Savoye v Spicers, where Savoye successfully enforced the adjudicator’s decision after Akenhead J agreed that the conveyor belt Savoye installed formed part of the land and therefore the work constituted “construction operations” for the purposes of section 105 of the Construction Act 1996. As a result, the contract was a “construction contract” for the purposes of section 104. This meant that the adjudicator’s finding that Savoye was entitled to be paid the sum it claimed as a result of Spicers’ not serving the requisite payment notices (some £828,000 plus interest) was enforced.

Akenhead J has now handed-down his costs judgment, and it raises some interesting points. Savoye’s costs were a hefty £201,790 for the adjudication enforcement, albeit the matter was resolved in a short trial after a unsuccessful summary judgment application. Continue reading →

Share this post on: