Search results

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.

The purpose of this paper is to outline a proposal for a Dual Scheme model of statutory adjudication for the Australian building and construction industry.

The paper deals with the security of payment problem in the Australian construction industry and the legislative response to that problem in New South Wales and elsewhere more generally. The paper highlights deficiencies in current adjudication schemes in Australia and proposes a revised methodology of adjudication by means of the proposed Dual Scheme model. The Dual Scheme is explained in detail and examples are given showing how the Dual Scheme would work in practice.

The Dual Scheme of adjudication allows for adjudication of “progress claims” (just as they are adjudicated now under the “Defined Scheme”), but also provides for separately adjudicated “money claims” in a similar way to that done under the “Non‐specific Scheme”. Both parties to a construction contract can take advantage of adjudication under a Non‐specific Scheme whilst simultaneously maintaining the relative time and cost benefits of the Defined Scheme in dealing with progress payment claims. Implementation of the proposed Dual Scheme would require new legislation.

The Dual Scheme is not a proposal to merely amalgamate two existing models of adjudication in Australia. Rather, it is a Dual Scheme incorporating the philosophy of two disparate systems of adjudication framed in a companionable form. It is hoped that the Dual Scheme may act as a common starting point for eventual agreement between the various interested groups as to what a national scheme of statutory adjudication in Australia will resemble in the future. The Dual Scheme proposal may be of interest in other jurisdictions where statutory adjudication for the construction industry has been introduced or is being contemplated.

The following is an introductory profile of the fastest growing firms over the three-year period of the study listed by corporate reputation ranking order. The business activities in which the firms are engaged are outlined to provide background information for the reader.

The purpose of this paper is to report on findings of follow‐up research into the performance of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW), which was undertaken in 2007. The research aims to re‐assess the performance of the Act in the light of strong demand for adjudication of construction payment claims in New South Wales.

A cross‐sectional survey of member firms of The Master Plumbers & Mechanical Contractors Association of NSW and the National Electrical & Communications Association (NSW Chapter) was undertaken using a comprehensive multiple‐choice questionnaire administered by post. The questionnaire comprised 23 questions, whereby all but one question was of a multiple‐choice type. In answering the questions, the sampled claimants were required to draw on their understanding of the Act, and their experience with the adjudication process. Results were compared with a pilot study undertaken by the authors in 2004.

The results indicate that the object of the Act is generally being achieved. Whilst the culture of making late payments remains well entrenched in the construction industry, there appears to be a modest downward trend in the frequency of late payments since the 2004 study. It is now reasonably certain that the act of endorsing payment claims encourages communication between the parties, thus providing an opportunity for early dispute avoidance or resolution. However, the level of knowledge of the Act amongst subcontracting organisations overall has not improved since 2004 study, and may have even declined. It is clear that contractors and subcontractors are not taking full advantage of the Act.

The paper provides evidence of the performance of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) between 2004 and 2007. The research compares key performance indicators for the purpose of determining whether or not the Act produces the expected result of increasing security of payment, and whether the results are consistent with the reason for the Act. It also provides important insights into the operation of similar legislation in other jurisdictions.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

While a considerable amount of knowledge has been accumulated about dispute causation, disputes continue to prevail and disharmonise the process of construction with considerable cost. This paper seeks to identify the underlying pathogens that clients and contractors perceive to contribute to disputes in construction projects. The identification of pathogens can provide an ameliorated understanding of the origin of disputes and therefore enable their prevention.

Case law and focus groups with a client and contracting organisation from Western Australia are used to determine the pathogens of disputes.

Analysis of the case law findings revealed that the underlying issues that were brought to litigation were to do with points of law, namely “civil procedure”. A significant number of disputes are thus settled using alternative dispute resolution methods such as adjudication, arbitration and mediation. For clients the underlying latent conditions that resulted in a dispute were due to the nature of the task being performed (e.g. failure to detect and correct errors) and those arising from people's deliberate practices (e.g. failure to oblige by contractual requirements). For the contractor focus group the circumstances arising from the situation or environment the project was operating in were identified as the main underlying latent condition for disputes (e.g. unforeseen scope changes).

Focus groups are only undertaken with clients and contracting groups as they were identified as the main parties involved in dispute during the analysis of litigation cases within Western Australia. Input from consultants and subcontractors may provide a more balanced perspective as to the perceived causes and costs of disputes.

The research has been able to provide the initial building blocks for understanding the underlying pathogens contributing to disputes. However, more empirical research is required before conclusive findings can be made, particularly with regard to the influences on subcontractors.

The purpose of this paper is to examine green building legislation requirements and practices in the construction project execution stage within the context of the South African construction industry. The rationale for this examination rests with the perception that the implementation of green practices (per se) has been recognised as being “behind” the legislation enacted to control the design and construction of green buildings.

The research process consisted of a literature review to identify existing green building legislation and practices applicable to the project execution phase. This was supported by a sequential mixed-method research approach, which involved a survey of contracting companies based in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Purposive sampling was used to undertake focused interviews with management staff and site operatives.

Research findings established a number of issues, not least: a gap between green building practices and legislation requirements; a high degree of unawareness of green building legislation/practices by construction company stakeholders; selective implementation of health and safety legislative requirements; that management staff had a more “positive” attitude to green building practices than site-based staff who tended to be less motivated and open to such practices.

Results from this study are considered generalisable with the sample frame only. Research inference and projections should therefore only be made within this set, and not to the wider population of South African contractors (as this study was limited to the Western Cape Province).

Implications from this research are applicable to construction company stakeholders within the population set. Practical considerations include the need to acknowledge a formal commitment to developing a sustainable built environment – especially cognisant of the gap between practices on site and green building legislation requirements. Moreover, this lack of awareness in respect of green building practices and legislation requirements impinges upon several wider areas, not least: construction company stakeholders’ positioning, health and safety practices; managerial and operational staff perceptions, and stakeholders’ willingness and motivation to proactively address these gaps.

Government bodies and allied professionals in charge of construction industry development are encouraged to consider the implementation of green building legislation requirements on construction sites. This reflection should encourage engagement through formative legislative provision and transparent awareness campaigns.

This work is original insofar as it directly addresses the alignment of legislation to current practices within the context of the South African construction industry. However, similar exercises have been undertaken on green building legislation in other countries such as USA, UK and Australia.

Many jurisdictions fine illegal cartels using penalty guidelines that presume an arbitrary 10% overcharge. This article surveys more than 700 published economic studies and judicial decisions that contain 2,041 quantitative estimates of overcharges of hard-core cartels. The primary findings are: (1) the median average long-run overcharge for all types of cartels over all time periods is 23.0%; (2) the mean average is at least 49%; (3) overcharges reached their zenith in 1891–1945 and have trended downward ever since; (4) 6% of the cartel episodes are zero; (5) median overcharges of international-membership cartels are 38% higher than those of domestic cartels; (6) convicted cartels are on average 19% more effective at raising prices as unpunished cartels; (7) bid-rigging conduct displays 25% lower markups than price-fixing cartels; (8) contemporary cartels targeted by class actions have higher overcharges; and (9) when cartels operate at peak effectiveness, price changes are 60–80% higher than the whole episode. Historical penalty guidelines aimed at optimally deterring cartels are likely to be too low.