Adjudication Case Summaries

The adjudication provisions in JCT 98 were not unfair terms for the purposes of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and were therefore binding

read more >

The adjudicator's direction that the client should pay the architect's costs of the adjudication should not be enforced by the court where the client abandoned the adjudication proceedings it brought against the architect without the adjudicator making a decision

read more >

The adjudicator was in breach of the rules of natural justice in having rejected the employer's contention that any sum due to the contractor should be significantly reduced on the ground that the employer had failed to give any notice of intention to withhold payment

read more >

The exchange of correspondence between the builder and the homeowner did not have the effect of there being an agreement in writing within the meaning of section 107(2)(b) or (c) of the Construction Act

read more >

The final certificate issued under JCT 98 was conclusive evidence of the matters set out in it notwithstanding that the contractor's notice of intention to refer in the (second) set of proceedings was not served within 28 days of the date of issue of the certificate

read more >

The adjudicator communicated his decision to the parties when he sent it by e-mail to them on the basis of what he had said in his letter of initial directions as to correspondence (other than for the publication of his decisions)

read more >

The homeowner's dismissal of the contract administrator did not mean that the payment machinery of JCT 98 could not longer be operated and that the payment machinery of the Scheme for Construction Contracts therefore applied in its place

read more >

The principles to be derived from caselaw which should always govern the exercise of the court?s discretion when considering a stay of execution in adjudication enforcement proceedings

read more >

Observations concerning how an adjudicator should deal with evidence and any provisional conclusions he might reach before finalising his decision and with giving reasons for the decision

read more >

Any consent by the referring party under paragraph 19(1)(b) of the Scheme for Construction Contracts to an extension of the period for the adjudicator to reach his decision from 28 to 42 days had to be given before the expiry of the (initial) 28 days period

read more >

Clause 39A2.2 of JCT 98 With Contractor's Design required the service of the notice of intention to refer a dispute to adjudication on the defendant in the adjudication before the referring party could apply to the contractual adjudicator nominating body

read more >

The propositions that could be derived from caselaw as to the meaning of "dispute" in relation to adjudications

read more >

It was not an abuse of the process for the contractor to have started adjudication proceedings over a year after the contractor had purported to accept the employer?s repudiation of the contract

read more >

Summary judgment should not be entered in the sub-contractor's favour ordering the contractor to pay the sum assessed by the adjudicator as being the value of the work it had carried out up to the time the contractor terminated its employment under the sub-contract

read more >

The response document served by the contractor in the adjudication began by the employer in which the contractor sought a longer extension of time than the one that formed the subject matter of the dispute referred by the employer did not constitute a new claim

read more >

Principles of law governing an employer being entitled to set off liquidated damages against the amount awarded by an adjudicator in his decision in favour of a contractor

read more >

The propositions advanced by Jackson J in Amec Civil Engineering v The Secretary of State for the Environment (2004) should be accepted and, in particular, the proposition that whilst the mere making of a claim did not amount to a dispute, a dispute would be held to exist once it could reasonably be inferred that a claim was not admitted

read more >

The contract was evidenced in writing within the meaning of section 107(2)(c)

read more >

The contention that adjudication generally or the adjudication provisions in JCT 98 in particular caused unfairness within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 was difficult to sustain

read more >

The fact that the sub-contractor included within its notice of referral in the second adjudication facts, matters and documentation (exceeding 4,000 pages) considered by the adjudicator in the first adjudication was not unfair and an abuse of the adjudication process

read more >