I don’t know about you, but I often find that the introduction to a TCC judgment sets the tone of the dispute and (I’m embarrassed to say) influences whether I read the entire judgment or simply pick out the interesting bits and then turn to the end for the result.

I was certainly encouraged to read the entirety of Coulson J’s judgment in Jerram Falkus v Fenice Investments when I discovered that the parties had been “…extraordinarily promiscuous in their attempts at dispute resolution…”. (I have previously blogged on the parties’ dispute over the adjudicator’s fees in one of three adjudications that took place.) Continue reading →

Last week I received a request from the solicitors for one of the parties in an adjudication to have more time to serve a submission. What made this request stand out was the reasons given, “because of the riots”. It isn’t a common reason, I’m pleased to say.

Of itself, a request for more time is not unusual. Such requests come in quite regularly from the parties or their representatives. It is a question of natural justice really. Continue reading →

As I said previously, when I read Edwards-Stuart J’s judgment in Hyder v Carillion, two things struck me:

• The court confirming that it is the decision of the adjudicator that is binding, not his reasoning.
• The question an adjudicator should ask himself as to whether he should share or put his approach or interpretation to the parties?

This post considers the second point. Continue reading →

When I read Edwards-Stuart J’s judgment in Hyder v Carillion, two things struck me:

• The court saying that it is the decision of the adjudicator that is binding, not his reasoning.
• The question an adjudicator should ask himself as to whether he should share or put his approach or interpretation to the parties?

This post considers the first point. I’ll save the second, “walking a tightrope” point, for another day. Continue reading →