Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the development of English Law and the Law in New South Wales, Australia in statutory adjudication concerning judicial review of adjudicators' errors in law.

This paper adopts a black‐letter law approach focussing on recent decisions and their effect on statutory adjudication.

Following the commencement of statutory adjudication in the UK, the English courts swiftly supported the new “pay now, argue later”, rapid form of dispute resolution by holding adjudication to be a private dispute resolution process akin to expert valuation. As such, the English courts have consistently held that adjudicators operate within their jurisdiction even though they may err on points of law, as long as such errors were committed in the course of attempting to answer a question they were contractually authorised to consider. The courts' position in New South Wales (NSW), however, has differed considerably. In NSW, the first Australian State to introduce statutory adjudication, the courts' position with respect to errors of law on the face of the record made by an adjudicator, who had jurisdiction to enter on the inquiry, in the course of making their determination has been somewhat tortuous. Contrary to the initial position following commencement of statutory adjudication, the paper concludes that it may now be more difficult to enforce an adjudicator's determination which contains an error of law in England than in NSW.

This paper compares the development of adjudication law in England with that of one state in Australia. The different directions that the law has taken in these jurisdictions will be of interest to academic and practitioners not only in England and Australia but to other jurisdictions where statutory adjudication has been introduced or where legislation is being considered. To the authors knowledge no previous study of this kind has been carried out previously.

Statutory adjudication was introduced into the security of payment (SOP) legislation as a fast-track payment dispute resolution process with an express object to facilitate cash flow within the construction contractual chain. After more than a decade of the operation of the regime in Australia and Singapore, it becomes apparent that there are many operational problems that jeopardise the intended object of the legislation, particularly in adjudicating complex payment disputes. The aim of this paper is to explore views of the industry stakeholders regarding some operational problems of statutory adjudication of as well as possible solutions.

“Expert interviews” method is adopted to collect the empirical data, involving interviews with 23 practitioners from Australia and Singapore.

The study identified many operational problems jeopardising the attainment of the object of the SOP legislation such as bias of authorised nominating authorities, short adjudication timeframes, inadequate regulations of adjudicators, jurisdictional challenges, involvement of courts and lawyers and complex drafting of the legislation. The study also analysed the views of industry experts with regard to the opportunities for improvement in the operation of the SOP legislation such as following the Queensland model as amended, and introducing a legislative review mechanism and establishing a peer review process. It also suggested specific amendments to make the legislation a more user-friendly.

The implication of this study is a better understanding of the most critical problems inherent in statutory adjudication that need serious consideration by the legislatures and policymakers. In addition, the study also provides some practical measures as suggested by the industry practitioners for each identified problem which may stand as a reliable reference for potential reform in the SOP laws.

There is inadequate empirical research conducted to investigate problems in the operation of statutory adjudication. The study provides original empirical findings which become much necessary nowadays in light of the dynamic moves towards law reform in SOP laws, particularly in Australia. The study provides some practical measures as suggested by the industry practitioners for each identified problem which may stand as a reliable reference for potential reform in the SOP laws.

Disputes under the New Engineering Contract (NEC) 2nd Edition involve a new approach to the role of Adjudicator. Clauses 90–93 have been radically revised. They reflect the recommendations of Latham's Report Constructing the Team, and growing international practice (e.g. the Channel Tunnel Disputes Panel). Also clarified are some questions over the 1 st Edition. The independent Adjudicator provides a mandatory third‐party neutral settlement process. The decision is final and binding, unless and until revised by the eventual tribunal (court or arbitration) after completion of the works, or termination. Legal drafting is achieved in the NEC style of plain English and present tense. Latham's objectives are reminiscent of traditional decisions of an independent Engineer, or of modern short form arbitration; but the new substantive approach is distinguished from both. The Adjudicator's decision determines the parties' rights and obligations. It does not depend on the Project Manager's implementation, but the latter is free to choose in accordance with the decision, e.g. by changing the Works Information as a compensation event. Distinctive of the NEC is the openness of procedure for the Adjudicator, and even‐handedness between the parties as to the continuing works while the Adjudicator is acting. The parties, by contract, given the independent Adjudicator jurisdiction to settle by its decision all disputes arising under or in connection with the contract. This is neither expert determination nor arbitration. The Adjudicator is to act fairly, not judicially. Some jurisdictional issues may remain, and are explored. There must be a proper substantive characterization of the new role, according to its true context and the parties' expressed intentions. NEC 2nd edition has clarified and enhanced the definition of the first third‐party stage fully to meet Latham's objectives, and to encourage by rapid but effective early resolution of disputes, within the overall NEC philosophy, a substantial reduction in the incidence of disputes.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of the statutory adjudication legislation in Western Australia against its stated aims.

The four objectives of the Western Australia Construction Contracts Act 2004 were identified. For each objective a number of criteria has been devised. In total, 22 registered adjudicators were interviewed, representing 28 per cent of all adjudicators in Western Australia. The interviewees were divided into two groups, one with legal background (being both lawyer and adjudicator), the other without (construction professionals). They were asked to evaluate the criteria against a five-point Likert scale in addition to open ended comments. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to examine whether there were significant differences between the two groups. Annual reports of Building Commissioner, database of the WA State Administrative Tribunal and some law cases were also referred to.

It is found that the West Coast Model is fair to both parties, the adjudications are generally completed speedily according to the prescribed timeframe, and they have been conducted in various levels of formalities. Adjudications are very cost effective for larger claims. However, they are not so for smaller claims. The increasing uptake rate shows that adjudication is getting more popular, while the low appeal rate shows that decisions on dismissal are fair.

The adjudicators’ opinions are only part of the overall picture and that more research on this topic needs to be done.

There have been two distinct legislative models in Australia, commonly known as East Coast Model and West Coast Model. A number of authors have called for a national dual model incorporating both current models. However, it might be too early to discuss the national dual model when there have been very few evaluations on the West Coast Model and among the few there have been problems in the research design. This paper seeks to bridge the gap by evaluating the West Coast Model against its stated aims.

States have intervened with legislation to improve cashflow within construction project supply chains. The operation of the UK’s Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 leads to payment obligations stated either as a contract administrator’s certificate (or equivalent) or an adjudicator’s decision. The purpose of the intervention would be defeated unless there are speedy ways of transforming these pieces of paper into real money. The combination of the legislation, contractual provisions and insolvency law has produced a minefield of complexity concerning enforcement of payment obligations stated in these documents. Unfortunately, the knowledge and understanding required to navigate these complexities have been sorely lacking. The purpose of this paper is to plug this gap.

Legal research methods and case study approaches, using relevant court decisions as data, were adopted.

The enforcement method advised by the court is the summary judgment procedure provided under the Civil Procedure Rules. An overdue payment obligation, either under the terms of a construction contract or an adjudicator’s decision, amounts to a debt that can be the subject of insolvency proceedings. Although the insolvency enforcement method has been successfully used on some occasions, using it purely as a debt collection weapon would be inappropriate and likely to be punished by the court.

The paper contributes to knowledge in two ways: (i) it maps out the factual situations in which these payment challenges arise in language accessible to the construction industry’s professions; and (ii) comparative analysis of payment enforcement methods to aid decision-making by parties to construction industry contracts. It is relevant to the other common-law jurisdictions in which similar statutory interventions have been made.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the implications of the admission of oral contracts to statutory adjudication proceedings. A major criticism of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“HGCRA 1996”) was that Section 107 required contracts to be “in writing” for the parties to be able to use statutory adjudication. In response, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 repealed Section 107 of the HGCRA 1996. This paper considers the implications of the admission of oral contracts to statutory adjudication proceedings, whereby adjudicators’ may now have to determine the exact nature of oral agreements. The critical literature review has highlighted that there is a perceived risk that, by allowing oral contracts to be decided through adjudication, there could be an increased risk of injustice (as the adjudicator may have to decide oral testimony about contract formation). Adjudicators may now have to determine the exact nature of oral agreements. The critical literature review has highlighted that there is a perceived risk that by allowing oral contracts to be decided through adjudication there could be an increased risk of injustice (as the adjudicator may have to decide oral testimony about contract formation).

The questionnaire responses of 38 construction industry professionals were analysed by identifying facts and salient themes. The research aims to identify to what extent the changes have widened the scope for entering into adjudication proceedings and whether there is an increased risk of injustice due to the short timescales involved.

There was significant agreement that parties to an oral agreement have an increased risk of injustice through wrong interpretation of the terms and significant disagreement that allowing oral contracts to be referred to adjudication will encourage the use of oral agreements. In addition, construction industry professionals were interviewed in the Midlands, UK, to obtain their opinions, views and perceptions of the admission of oral contracts to statutory adjudication.

The research is anticipated to be of particular benefit to parties considering referring an oral contract to adjudication.

The purpose of this paper is to examine two specific circumstances where UK courts may stay the execution of a judgment to enforce a statutory adjudication decision; where a final decision is sought on a discrete point; and where the winning party is insolvent. In this context, there is consideration of what a “binding” decision means for the purposes of Part II of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.

A black letter, doctrinal approach is adopted, using two High Court decisions as a focus for wider critical reflection.

The cases where a final determination on part of an adjudication decision is successful are rare and will depend on the facts. Despite some unorthodox recent decisions, the likelihood remains that parties will struggle to challenge part only of an adjudication decision. The leading case authorities support the underlying principle of the Construction Act insofar as adjudication decisions are binding and should be enforced or else the Court will impose punitive statutory interest on the debt. This principle applies even in cases where the adjudication decision is successfully challenged in such cases.

This paper also addresses two decisions given by Edwards‐Stuart J. in the High Court, both of which adopt a novel approach to the relevant issues, and hence this discussion of those approaches demonstrates originality.

To consider the recent decision by the Court of Appeal in the case of Hurst Stores v. M L Europe Property Ltd (2004) and the possible important implications for building surveyors and other construction professionals.

A review of literature and case law. Possible developments in this area of law are considered.

A person described as a “project manager” does not necessarily have authority to make legally binding agreements. Where a building surveyor is acting as a project manager, the extent of authority ought to be clarified, preferably in writing. Where a building surveyor is dealing or negotiating with a project manager, he/she cannot take it for granted that any agreement reached will be legally binding. Furthermore, as a consequence of the decision in the Court of Appeal, a document with the heading “Final Account” might not be a final account at all!

Increasingly, building surveyors are involved in adjudication, either as witnesses or as adjudicators. In the latter case, the building surveyor ought to be aware that as a result of this case, the probability of a legal challenge to an adjudicator's decision is greatly increased. Another consequence of cases such as Hurst means that building surveyors are more likely rather than less likely to be involved in adjudication if they are operating in the UK.

Applies recent case law to the work of building surveyors.

This paper aims to examine the potential recovery of own party adjudication costs under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations 2013. The investigation directly applies to England and Wales, but may be relevant to other jurisdictions.

The interaction between The Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations 2013 (derived from European Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions) and the Local Democracy et al. 2009 including reference to case law was explored. A qualitative research framework was used to collect primary data through semi-structured interviews with experienced construction industry adjudication professionals.

It was discovered that adjudicators are awarding own party costs under the Regulations, but there was disagreement on the issues in both the literature and amongst the interviewees.

A definitive judgment is awaited from the Technology and Construction Court.

This paper will be of value to construction industry adjudication professionals.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse whether title to land is secure in England and Wales when registered under the Land Registration Act 2002, in particular when a title is registered without the proprietor being able to establish good title under pre‐registration rules of property law.

This paper analyses reported judgments, with particular emphasis on the decision in Walker v. Burton [2012].

The paper identifies an uncertainty at the heart of the registration system: the uncertainty as to the extent to which a registered title may be rectified to remove the proprietor. This is acute when it appears that the registered proprietor has no claim to the land other than by reason of his registration. There may be a difference in this regard between intangible property titles and tangible titles.

The Land Registration Act 2002 is meant to replace registration of title with title by registration. The real force of this is only now being realised and there are few reported judgements, and less consistency, working out what this means in practice.