I have written about adjudication in Ireland a number of times over the years and I’m continuing my infrequent series today with another look at it, this time with a focus on enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision. But first, a recap… Continue reading
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d7440/d74408cbbeaab7b5220fe49e37252af6fbfcd55f" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/13be6/13be6e7d6379a3ae77aea75935db4f72649bf576" alt=""
Received the adjudicator’s decision? You still need to reserve your position on jurisdiction
You are no doubt aware that it is absolutely essential to reserve your position on jurisdiction as early as possible in adjudication proceedings. The reservation itself must also be as specific as possible, as discussed by Coulson LJ in the Court of Appeal decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd (this point was not appealed to the Supreme Court).
But how much thought have you given to the possibility of inadvertently waiving the right to raise jurisdictional objections following receipt of the adjudicator’s decision?
This point, and a number of relevant authorities, were recently explored in Croda Europe Ltd v Optimus Services Ltd. Continue reading
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a867b/a867b4ec9efa33ac2a8ea9d54b984cd64b3a3372" alt=""
As recently discussed, contract interpretation is, relatively, easy when the words are very clear. But once a potential ambiguity is identified, it becomes necessary to look at what makes commercial sense, as well as what has been described as the factual background, or the “matrix of fact” referred to in Prenn v Simmonds.
More recently, this was described as “the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the contract” (Rainy Sky v Kookmin Bank). Identifying the knowledge reasonably available to the parties seems easier than identifying what makes commercial sense, which I looked at in February. Continue reading
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c3c41/c3c41be460d55e0db57535e06a8c65056d939ecf" alt=""
My TCC birthday list
I recently learned that the Technology and Construction Court (or, more precisely, the Official Referees’ Court as it was known until 1998) will soon celebrate its 150th birthday, having started life in 1873.
No birthday would be complete without a birthday list of long-desired gifts but, as a public body staffed by public servants, there is little point in trying to think of what presents we could give as they couldn’t be accepted anyway. Rather, I decided to come up with a list of presents that the TCC could give us, the construction law community, and it’s in the form of issues that I would like to see decided by the court before its landmark birthday.
What I have in mind are the types of issues we see crop up in adjudication, as well as arbitration and litigation, where there are arguable grey areas in the current case law, or no case law directly on the point. Here’s my first crack at the list (and I’ve left room for you to insert your issue of choice too). Continue reading
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/33795/3379503fb2340bf11ecbdfec319fb50a67f15247" alt=""
Some breaches of contract do not become apparent until many years have passed. This is especially true where the result is a defect. Recently, our colleague Charlotte Mears blogged on limitation periods under contract. But what happens after the limitation period under a contract has expired?
This blog explores the extent to which an answer lies in tort focusing on the tort of negligence. Continue reading