REUTERS | Jason Lee
May 8, 2012

Severing adjudicators’ decisions

It may have been a long time coming, but it seems the courts have finally severed an adjudicator’s decision (I’m conveniently ignoring the judgment in Geoffrey Osborne v Atkins Rail, as I don’t think that is quite the same thing).

In Working Environments v Greencoat, Akenhead J had to decide whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide about two items, valued at £21,000 (plus VAT). He decided he didn’t, and so then had to consider whether the remainder of the adjudicator’s decision could still be enforced (that part was valued at £230,000 plus VAT). Akenhead J held that there was no reason why the substance of the adjudicator’s decision should not be enforced, and so he gave judgment in WE’s favour. He severed the two items valued at £21,000. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Alex Domanski
May 2, 2012

Natural justice in adjudication in 2012

When Coulson J came to prepare for the second edition of his book, Coulson on Construction Adjudication (Oxford University Press, 2011), he must have realised just how far the law on natural justice had moved forward in the three years since the first edition was published (in 2007). Instead of just one chapter, the second edition now contains three chapters on natural justice, dealing in turn with general principles, bias (actual and apparent) and the right to a fair hearing (including procedural issues, oral hearings and reasons). Continue reading →

REUTERS | Alex Domanski
May 1, 2012

What if…? Could the adjudicator’s decision have been different?

It is probably fair to say that adjudication favours the referring party. After all, the referring party can spend as much (or as little) time as it wants preparing its claim, collating evidence, proofing witnesses and getting its expert evidence in place. On the other hand, the responding party is up against the clock from the moment it receives the notice of adjudication. I’d say there is a world of difference between knowing a claim may result in a notice of adjudication, and actually having to respond to one when it lands on your desk. Anyone having experienced this will know just how quickly the clock hands go around, once it starts ticking.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Jose Miguel Gomez
May 1, 2012

Release of retention under the amended Construction Act

The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (LDEDC Act 2009), which amended the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (Construction Act 1996) has now been in force for over half a year. This post focuses on one aspect of the statutory requirement that a construction contract includes an adequate mechanism for payment as it affects release of retention, particularly sub-contract retention.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Russell Boyce
April 30, 2012

April 2012 digest: showers, fires and IT issues

From Walt Disney’s Bambi:

“Drip drip drop, little April shower, what can compare with your beautiful sound?

Beautiful sound, beautiful sound, drip, drop, drip, drop.”

The spring blossom is falling like snow because of the showers and winds that many of us are experiencing at the moment. It may be good news for gardeners and farmers, even if it not enough to bring an end to the drought. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Jason Lee
April 24, 2012

When a building is destroyed by fire, how do you prove who is to blame?

A number of recent cases illustrate the exacting standard applied by the court to questions of competing-causes in fire claims.

Where, who and how

The most recent case is United Marine Aggregates Ltd v GM Welding & Engineering Ltd, which shows that working out where the fire started – or who started it – may not be enough. If you are to succeed in court, you also need to know how it started. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Ricardo Moraes
April 17, 2012

Avoiding payment to an insolvent payee under the amended Construction Act

Continuing on the theme of commenting on the drafting of the amendments made to Part II of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (Construction Act 1996) by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (LDEDC Act 2009), this blog considers new section 111 of the Construction Act 1996. Specifically, it looks at how section 111 operates in the event of payee insolvency.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Andrew Winning
April 17, 2012

Construction Act 1996 amendments six months on

I realised the other day that it was a little over six months since the amendments to the Construction Act 1996 came into force. I don’t know about you, but it only feels like five minutes since we were reading about the amendments and how they were going to impact on construction contracts and those involved in the industry, not only on how the Act was changing, but also in terms of the impact on payment and the number of otherwise excluded parties who would now be able to use adjudication to resolve their disputes.

But has life really changed and, from my perspective, has life changed for adjudicators? Continue reading →