In the month since Lord Dyson’s judgment in PC Harrington v Systech was published, and I wrote a blog about it, there has been one subject on the lips of most adjudicators and those involved in adjudication (and it isn’t West Brom holding on to a Champion’s League place in the Premiership). Instead, it is the issue of a party’s liability for the adjudicator’s fees when he produces an unenforceable decision.
Since the Arbitration Act 1996 came into force, the courts have upheld arbitration clauses agreed between the parties in precedence to litigation commenced by one of them. If a contract contains an arbitration clause, then parallel proceedings will be stayed on either party’s application, even if the dispute is of a flimsy nature.
However, the court must first be persuaded that there is a genuine arbitration clause and this issue arose in Turville Heath v Chartis Insurance, decided by Edwards-Stuart J in the TCC earlier this month. Continue reading
Akenhead J first suggested the possibility of severing an adjudicator’s decision in Cantillon v Urvasco back in 2008. However, while severance was also discussed by the TCC later that year in Quartzelec v Honeywell Control Systems, it wasn’t until earlier this year in Working Environments v Greencoat Construction that an adjudicator’s decision was actually severed. Since then, severance has rather taken off, and the latest offering is in Lidl UK GmbH v R G Carter.
I was recently fortunate enough to be asked to speak at a dispute resolution conference in Dubai, which was jointly organised by Dubai Land Department and RICS. On one of the days, I took part in an expert witness workshop. It was fascinating to talk to people who act as experts in the local courts: Dubai has a civil law system so the expert is appointed by, and directly assists, the court.
A subscriber recently asked whether a contractor under a JCT contract can claim an extension of time after the contract administrator has issued a certificate of practical completion.
Whether the Construction Act 1996 applied to letters of intent was an issue that troubled practitioners and the courts for a number of years. From the various cases that considered this issue, the answer seemed to be that each case would turn on its own facts (that classic lawyerly phrase!), but the Act would apply if the letter of intent was a “complete agreement”. In other words, if the letter of intent satisfied the requirements of section 107, the parties were “parties to a construction contract“.
So, what happens to letters of intent now that section 107 has been repealed? Continue reading
John Clare, Remembrances:
“Summer’s pleasures they are gone like to visions everyone. And the cloudy days of autumn and of winter cometh on. I tried to call them back but unbidden they are gone.”
In the 1970’s, the Two Ronnies made famous a sketch about four candles, or was it fork handles? During October, PLC Construction reached the milestone of fork handles, by which we mean our fourth birthday. We didn’t pop any champagne corks in the office, nor do we expect many were being popped to celebrate a year of the Construction Act 1996 amendments. Despite last year’s fanfare, the amendments have met with a muted reaction and there has been no reported judicial guidance on the new payment or adjudication provisions. Continue reading
Just the other day, I was reading Tony Bingham’s piece in Building about the return of Lord Dyson to the Court of Appeal as the Master of the Rolls. Tony ended his piece as follows:
“I am excited by the ‘re-appearance’ of this judge. What does he say now about this 14-year old dispute management scheme? Have we strayed off-piste?”
A couple of days later, Lord Dyson’s judgment in PC Harrington v Systech was published. In light of the conclusions he reached about adjudicators’ fees, I wonder what Tony (and a lot of other people) are thinking now. Continue reading
A recent post of mine considered two separate Coulson J judgments where the paying party attempted to set-off claims after the adjudicator’s decision had been issued. But what happens if the responding party raises a set-off (or counterclaim) during the adjudication process?
In October 2011, I wrote a couple of blogs on the “simplified” Construction Act 1996 payment provisions. I concluded by saying that:
“…once the questions over the meaning of some of the amendments have been resolved, I actually think that the amendments will be quite effective at maintaining cash flow.”
One year on, I thought it was worthwhile reviewing how the new payment provisions are faring. Continue reading
