Rupert Choat cited the number of cases that adjudication has thrown up, listed problems with some grey areas and concluded that the glass was half empty. Here’s the other side of the story
I would like to comment this week on Rupert Choat’s article on adjudication in ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½ two weeks ago. Looking back at the last year it does indeed seem remarkable how many court cases there are that still challenge the enforceability of an adjudicator’s decision, and how many of those are successful; and this is despite the strong judicial support for adjudication generally over the years, notably in the Court of Appeal.
However, I draw a slightly different inference from all these cases than Rupert. I do not, for example, think that it can be said that the Construction Act, or those parts of it dealing with adjudication, are unclear, and therefore need frequent court decisions to clarify them. On the contrary, they seem to me for the most part to be admirably clear. The problem with the system of adjudication set up by the act lies not with its complexity but with its radicalism.
The system was recommended specifically for dealing with the cash flow problems that can arise for contractors and subcontractors during building projects; however, as we all know, in the event it was applied to any dispute arising out of a construction contract (including professional engagements), at any time, even if the contract was over. The main limitation was that the contract had to be in writing and that limitation ma