REUTERS | Mike Hutchings

To boldly go: TCC judges advance adjudication jurisprudence

At the moment, we are seeing three clear trends emerge in the way the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) is dealing with adjudication business, each of which is lead by one of the TCC judges:

  • Akenhead J has given judgments on severability of the adjudicator’s decision (click here for an example).
  • Coulson J has given judgments on using the CPR Part 8 procedure in adjudication cases, both before, during and after the adjudicator has reached his decision  (click here for an example).
  • Ramsey J has given judgments allowing leeway on, or applying a purposive construction to, “deficiencies” in notices of adjudication and referral notices (click here for an example).

This is a busy time for the TCC, as we have previously reported. Will 2009 see these trends develop further, fall away, or be joined by other new aspects to modern contentious construction practice? Only time will tell.

One thought on “To boldly go: TCC judges advance adjudication jurisprudence

  1. We are already seeing “other new aspects to modern contentious construction practice” emerge, just days after this post was published.

    Approbation and reprobation. Although we did not highlight this principle (one case is hardly a trend), Ramsey J has recently published another judgment where he considers its application in adjudication proceedings. Claire McNamara of Berwin Leigton Paisner has also written about this issue.

    Liability for adjudicator’s fees. For the first time, there is clear guidance from the TCC that the parties are jointly and severally liable for the adjudicator’s fees, regardless of whether they enter into a written contract with the adjudicator or challenge the adjudicator’s jurisdiction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share this post on: