The Government’s anti-blacklisting Regulations came into force on 2 March, but will they stop blacklisting?
The problem
In March 2009, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) uncovered a database containing the details of 3,213 construction workers, which was used by over 40 construction companies to vet individuals for employment. The database effectively acted as a blacklist of the individuals who appeared on it. Continue reading
The keenness of responding parties (and sometimes referring parties) to raise jurisdictional challenges about every little (and big) thing is, perhaps, an understandable part of adjudication. It often seems as though parties raise these challenges regardless of whether they believe the challenge has any merit, and irrespective of the stage that the adjudication has reached. Some challenges are simply wide ranging general reservations, others are concerned with more specific grounds. Continue reading
An English proverb says:
“If February give much snow, a fine Summer it doth foreshow.”
Regular readers of PLC Construction’s monthly digest will have noticed that it has been dominated by bad weather and environmental issues in recent months. That hasn’t changed in February, with the continuing wintry weather and the launch of PLC Environment’s CRC Survival Kit, which provides a “one-stop shop for information on the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, also known as the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC)”.
The kit followed a nutshell, an overview and a glossary on the CRC. We also published a note explaining its impact on the construction industry. Continue reading
Paragraph 20 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts states that an adjudicator “shall decide the matters in dispute”. The adjudicator may also take into account “any other matters” that are within the scope of the adjudication or are matters “under the contract”, which he considers are “necessarily connected with the dispute”. This extends, at paragraph 20(a), to opening up, revising and reviewing decisions or certificates unless they are stated in the contract to be “final and conclusive”.
It is all a bit of a mouthful. Basically, the Scheme gives an adjudicator very wide discretion indeed!
There are a number of inherently competing principles in the adjudication process.
The timetable is short and judges have recently been telling us that adjudicators should keep control of the timetable and not to allow the process to go on forever. However, at the same time, the rules of natural justice apply. This includes giving each party the opportunity to know the case against it and allowing it to answer that case. Continue reading
Pool Re was (and still is) one of the most significant developments in British insurance in the last twenty years, but why is it important to the construction industry?
What is Pool Re?
Pool Reinsurance Company Ltd (Pool Re) is a mutual reinsurance company. It provides reinsurance on a direct basis (that is, without broker intervention) to its members in respect of damage or business interruption caused by “an act of terrorism” to commercial property located in Great Britain. In turn, the Government provides unlimited reinsurance to Pool Re, protecting Pool Re if all its financial resources are exhausted following claim payments. Continue reading
Are we witnessing a sea change in the Technology and Construction Court’s (TCC) approach to the enforcement of adjudicators’ decisions? Two recent TCC decisions suggest we may be. In both cases, the TCC took giant steps in developing adjudication enforcement practice. It is no coincidence that both cases were heard by Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart.
The question is, are we ready for such a big change? Continue reading
I’m not telling you anything new when I say that the adjudicator’s jurisdiction lies at the heart of every adjudication. It is also fairly obvious that if the adjudicator has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute referred to him, ultimately, the parties will waste both their time and money as one party will refuse to pay up and the adjudicator’s decision will not be enforced by a court. Equally well established is the principle that adjudicators cannot make binding decisions about their own jurisdiction.
But how easy is it for the adjudicator to determine whether he has jurisdiction, even on a non-binding basis? Continue reading
I acted for the claimant in Anrik Limited v AS Leisure Properties Limited (8 January 2010, unreported). We were before Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC).
Two important points arise from this case:
