|
Author Rob Adam
Issue Summer 07
Publication IoD
The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 introduced the process of ‘adjudication’ for resolving construction disputes. It was hailed as a big step forward for the construction industry. But has it worked?
Adjudication is a process for resolving construction disputes. The contract must be in writing and if it does not make express provision for adjudication, the process will still be implied into most construction contracts.
The beauty of adjudication is its simplicity and speed. The process has timetables which require quick responses, and a straightforward adjudication could be over within a month.
Compared with the alternatives (arbitration or court), adjudication is devastatingly fast and a formidable tool for sub-contractors, as the respondent is under immediate time pressure to prepare a response.
It is possible to refer a dispute to an adjudicator before the end of the contract. So, if a sub-contractor feels he has received an unjust award on, say, a monthly interim payment, that award can be referred.
The informality and simplicity of adjudication is a great strength and, on straightforward issues, it is possible for clients to submit a referral themselves.
Once the adjudicator has reached a decision, it is binding for both parties. The losing party is usually required to make payment, and pay the adjudicator’s fees, within 14 days.
Adjudication is not always appropriate. Where there are difficult contractual or legal points it is worth considering the courts.
If you are a sub-contractor with a straight forward dispute, adjudication should be the primary weapon. When I asked a building client if adjudication worked, he stated: “It is the best thing they ever did.”
It seems that adjudication, a radical initiative when introduced, has become an outstanding success story.
Rob Adam
Partner & Head of Dispute Resolution
Tel: 01284 762331
Email: rob.adam@ashtongraham.co.uk
Click here to download this article as a pdf
Other articles
|
