All posts by busbyd

REUTERS | Damir Sagolj

The TCC’s judgment in RWE Npower Renewables Ltd v J N Bentley Ltd got me thinking about the possibility of “appealing” an adjudicator’s decision. While we all accept that adjudicators’ decisions are of a temporary or interim binding nature, in practice, court or arbitration proceedings rarely follow on from the majority of decisions. That means many decisions stand as determining the parties’ rights and obligations forever (which sounds a very long time!).

But what if you don’t like the adjudicator’s decision, is there anything else you can do rather than proceeding to a full blown trial? Continue reading

REUTERS | Tobias Schwarz

A couple of weeks ago I went to Edinburgh to give a talk to the Society of Construction Law on global claims in the wake of Walter Lilly v Mackay. However, both before and after the talk, a number of the Scottish delegates were more interested in talking about their very own Mackay case, White and Mackay v Blyth & Blyth, as Lord Malcolm’s latest judgment had been published the day before.

Continue reading

REUTERS | Andrew Winning

Adjudication enforcement decisions often throw up interesting discussion points and two judgments from last week are no exception. The first concerned Lord Malcolm’s decision in Whyte and Mackay v Blyth & Blyth, where the court considered the adjudicator had breached the rules of natural justice as there was a “very significant omission” in his decision and reasoning. While that of itself would make a good blog topic (and is something Jonathan will be looking at), it was the application of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that is more likely to attract commentators north and south of the border. In fact, Alastair Walls has written about it today.

The second judgment, Ramsey J’s decision in Willmott Dixon v Newlon Housing Trust, is the one I’m interested in. Continue reading

REUTERS | Navesh Chitrakar

This issue came up over lunch recently. It got me thinking about whether I would like to see my decisions made public or whether I prefer the current position whereby they remain private between the parties and only get an airing in public if there is an issue on enforcement. Even then, the decision is not put into the public domain, rather bits and pieces are shared by the judge in the judgment, along with the adjudicator’s main findings.

Continue reading

REUTERS | Ina Fassbender

Miriam Nothman might be a lawyer’s worst nightmare. She was the last litigant in person to take a case to the House of Lords – and win it. Proof, if needed, that not all litigants in person make frivolous claims. However, the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Wright v Michael Wright Supplies Ltd indicates that the judiciary has concerns over the increasing number of litigants in person and the effect this is having on the conduct of litigation.

Continue reading

REUTERS | Mike Segar

One of the reasons that adjudication is so popular is the speed in which a temporarily binding decision can be obtained. However, as a result the parties can be under immense pressure to produce submissions within very limited timescales. In particular, the responding party may only have seven days to prepare a response. When you take into account the other commitments of its employees and party representatives, this might be a tall order. Similar problems can arise with the reply, particularly when new defences are raised in the response.

However, one of the consequences of these compressed timescales is that submissions tend to be longer than necessary. Consequently, an alternative title to this post might be “Why say it in ten words when 100 will do?”. Continue reading

REUTERS | Navesh Chitrakar

For almost 60 years (most recently in Cadogan Petroleum Holdings Ltd v Global Process Systems), courts have been asked to consider what happens to money already paid by way of instalments in relation to a contract if the contract is rescinded and the seller retains the property that is the subject matter of the contract.

In summary, the cases have held that if the pre-payment of an instalment is not intended to be a forfeitable deposit, the seller’s right to retain the instalment is conditional upon completion of the contract and the transfer of title to the seller. In order to determine whether it is a forfeitable deposit, one has to construe the terms of the actual contract as a whole. Continue reading

REUTERS | Sharif Karim

Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass:

“I wonder if the snow loves the trees and fields, that it kisses them so gently? And then it covers them up snug, you know, with a white quilt; and perhaps it says ‘Go to sleep, darlings, till the summer comes again’.”

It may officially be spring, but it feels like spring is on hold this year. With biting cold winds and snow blanketing much of the country, it definitely feels more like January than March, and it looks certain that all modern March temperature records will be broken (but not in a good way). Much of the animal and plant world may sensibly still be hibernating, but that hasn’t been the case in the legal world. Continue reading

REUTERS | Jumana ElHeloueh

Over the last few months both Jonathan and I have written about various aspects of expert evidence, whether that is on the difficulties an expert may faceeducating experts or what an appraiser is. However, another area of expert evidence that seems to get little coverage is what an adjudicator should do, if they suspect one of the experts involved in the dispute has breached his professional duties in some way.

Continue reading

Share this post on: