Industry News

Newsletter - August 2018

6/9/2018

In June of this year (2018) the sixth Technology and Construction Court judgment in respect of an on-going dispute between Imperial Chemical Industries Limited ("ICI") and Merit Merrell Technology Limited ("MMT") was published.

Paragraph 428 of that very long judgment (the very last paragraph of the judgment) makes interesting reading.

That paragraph said ‘… This litigation also stands as something of an advertisement for adjudication. The amount of the MMT account for the works, finally determined (in court) after the expenditure of legal and experts’ fees measured in millions of pounds, is barely 1% more than the amount awarded to MMT in the adjudications. The issue of who repudiated the contract was resolved in the litigation in the liability judgment with the same result as that given by the Adjudicator in the 3rd adjudication.’

It is clear from the above, that it would have been much quicker and much less expensive if ICI and MMT had simply relied upon the adjudication process rather than on the litigation process; and from our experience that is the position in respect of most claims that we see.

Peter Barnes
Blue Sky ADR
August 2018

The end of ‘Smash and Grab’ Adjudications – or is ‘the wheel still in spin’?

6/9/2018

The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act, 2009 ("LDEDCA") says that if a valid Default Payment Notice is submitted by a Payee which is not rebutted by a valid and timeous Payment Notice or Pay Less Notice by the Payer, then the Payer is required to pay to the Payee the ‘notified sum’ as stated on the Default Payment Notice. This sets out the principle of ‘pay now – argue later’, a principle designed to protect the Payee’s cash flow.

Unilateral Withdrawal from an Adjudication

4/12/2017

An issue that sometimes arises is, can a Referring Party unilaterally withdraw from an Adjudication?

Recovery of Adjudication Costs

19/11/2017

In a previous Newsletter we considered the position regarding the recovery by a party of its costs in the adjudication process. The ‘Construction Act’ of 1996, was silent on the question of costs. However, the presumption was always that (irrespective of the outcome of the adjudication) parties would be liable for their own costs in the adjudication process.

Construction Law Seminar Series II: 29 November 2017

12/10/2017

In 2017 the University of Westminster is promoting the Construction Law Seminar Series II: Comparing International Construction Disputes, for the engagement of students, international players and stakeholders in the construction industry, encouraging a horizontal debate environment for the future construction law professionals.

The use and abuse of Part 8 Applications in attempting to resist the enforcement of Adjudicator’s Decisions

14/8/2017

Peter Barnes, Blue Sky ADR Ltd

The use and abuse of Part 8 Applications in attempting to resist the enforcement of Adjudicator’s Decisions was considered and decided upon by Mr Justice Coulson in the recent Hutton Construction Limited v Wilson Properties (London) Limited [2017] EWHC 517 (TCC) case.

Employment Law Services by Chambers On The Hill

1/3/2017

A number of our clients have asked us if we provide Employment Law Services, and we have had to advise them that we do not provide those services.

Recovery of Adjudication Costs

13/2/2017

Introduction

In Adjudication the normal position (under both the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, (the Construction Acts)) is that both parties are responsible for their own costs in the adjudication process irrespective of whether they ‘win, lose or draw’ the Adjudication. There can be exceptions to this normal position but those exceptions are rarely encountered, and therefore are ignored entirely for the purpose of this article. The basic premise being taken in this article (a basic premise that applies in the overwhelming majority of cases in any event) is that parties to an Adjudication are liable for their own costs irrespective of the outcome of the Adjudication.

JCT Design & Build 2016 – What Has Changed? – Part 2

18/1/2017

JCT has now published the 2016 edition of the Design and Build Contract. There have been many changes to the wording of the contracts. This is our second Newsletter looking at the key changes that have been made, our previous Newsletter was issued earlier this month.

JCT Design & Build 2016 – What Has Changed? – Part 1

5/1/2017

JCT has now published the 2016 edition of the Design and Build Contract. There have been many changes to the wording of the contracts but in this and in our next Newsletter we will be looking at the key changes that have been made.

<<Previous

Newsletter - August 2018

The end of ‘Smash and Grab’ Adjudications – or is ‘the wheel still in spin’?

Unilateral Withdrawal from an Adjudication

Recovery of Adjudication Costs

Construction Law Seminar Series II: 29 November 2017

The use and abuse of Part 8 Applications in attempting to resist the enforcement of Adjudicator’s Decisions

Employment Law Services by Chambers On The Hill

Recovery of Adjudication Costs

JCT Design & Build 2016 – What Has Changed? – Part 2

JCT Design & Build 2016 – What Has Changed? – Part 1

Sign up to the Blue Sky ADR newsletter

Archives