It sometimes feels like issues in case law are a bit like buses. You don’t see one for ages and then several come along all together. I got that feeling recently when I read the judgments in Westshield v Buckingham and FG Skerritt v Caledonian Building Systems. For very different reasons, in both cases the court enforced the adjudicator’s decision and rejected the stay of execution sought by the paying party under that decision.

Aside from the stay of execution point (which failed, Buckingham was ordered to be pay the amount found to be due by the first adjudicator), I thought the judgment in Westshield v Buckingham threw up a number of other interesting issues. Continue reading →

It never ceases to amaze me how many reported judgments there are where the expert evidence of one of the parties is criticised by the judge. My last post referred to the views of Peter Smith J in Mengiste, and his conclusion that:

“In this case, there was no doubt that [the claimant’s expert] was one of the worst expert witnesses ever to give evidence before me.”

While that case was proceeding in the Chancery division, it seems that the TCC judges have also been looking at the quality of expert witnesses again. This time, it was Akenhead J in Igloo Regeneration v Powell Williams Partnership. Continue reading →

Did you realise that there are a multitude of different types of surveyors? Not just the usual suspects such as land surveyors (those standing by the side of the road in high-vis jackets with theodolites) and quantity surveyors (the “brick counters”), but also arts and antiques surveyors, machinery and business assets surveyors, and so on. Some surveyors even go on to specialise within their particular area. This may not be the most exciting start to a blog but bear with me.

Anyway, the different types of surveyors got me thinking about which roles (in addition to quantity surveyors) could be caught under the heading “surveying work” in section 104(2) of the Construction Act 1996 or, for that matter, any other part of section 104. Establishing whether a role comes within the Act can be important to surveyors wanting to exercise their rights under the Act. For example, their rights in relation to payment or suspension, or to employers wanting to pursue professional negligence claims against surveyors via adjudication. Continue reading →

Earlier this year, I raised the possibility of adjudicator-bias in the context of adjudicator’s being paid (or not) following Lord Dyson’s judgment in PC Harrington Contractors Ltd v Systech International Ltd. What I wondered was whether it was arguable (or at least would be argued by some) that being paid at the end of the adjudication process would influence an adjudicator in favour of a particular party when he was making his decision.

While I’m unaware of this proposition being tested by the courts yet, it is possible that we will see the argument in enforcement proceedings in the not-too-distant future. Meanwhile, until then, another case concerning allegations of bias caught my eye recently. This time, it was a judge being asked to recuse himself for bias. Continue reading →