Adjudication - Articles from The Vinden Partnership http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/ The contractor’s contention that the adjudicator acted in breach of the rules of natural justice by reaching a decision contrary to the overwhelming weight of evidence and by wrongly failing to apply the “slip” rule to correct the errors in his decision pointed out by it should be rejected http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/rok%20building%20ltd%20v%20celtic%20composting%20systems%20ltd%20%28part%20ii%29.htm Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:00:00 GMT The contractor’s contention that there were two sub-contracts should be rejected with the result that the adjudicator’s decision awarding the sub-contractor a specified sum should be enforced by summary judgment http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/supablast%20%28nationwide%29%20ltd%20v%20story%20rail%20ltd.htm Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:00:00 GMT The statutory demands made by the contractor against the homeowners in respect of the sum which the adjudicator directed the homeowners to pay the contractor should be set aside http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/shaw%20v%20mfp%20foundations%20%26%20piling%20ltd.htm Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:00:00 GMT The contract precluded a set off from being raised against the sum awarded to the contractor by the adjudicator so that the employer was not entitled to set off its claim for liquidated damages where that claim was assumed to be bona fide, arguable and capable of operating as a set off http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/rwe%20npower%20plc%20v%20alstom%20power%20ltd.htm Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:00:00 GMT An adjudicator was not in breach of the rules of natural justice if the decision did not address each and every aspect of the evidence adduced by the parties http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/jacques%20v%20ensign%20contractors%20ltd.htm Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:00:00 GMT The adjudicators application of the slip rule to correct the accidental error in his decision was made within his jurisdiction and the court could not and should interfere with it and even if the court could interfere, the error was an inadvertent slip and should not be interfered with http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/o%27donnell%20developments%20ltd%20v%20buildability%20ltd.htm Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:00:00 GMT The proceedings brought by the clients against the consultant in which they claimed the sums directed by the adjudicator to be paid by them to the consultant should be stayed until the clients paid those sums http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/anglo%20swiss%20holdings%20ltd%20v%20packman%20lucas%20ltd.htm Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:00:00 GMT The employer should pay the costs of the Part 8 proceedings brought by it for declarations as to the true construction of the contract’s payment mechanisms on the standard basis and the costs of the contractor’s Part 7 proceedings to enforce the adjudicator’s on an indemnity basis http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/fenice%20investments%20inc%20v%20jerram%20falkus%20construction%20ltd.htm Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:00:00 GMT If the adjudicator had taken more of a grip on the adjudication process (as he should have done), it was likely that he would have concluded that the adjudication could not be properly or fairly progressed and that the right course of action was for him to resign http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/enterprise%20managed%20services%20ltd%20v%20tony%20mcfadden%20utilities%20ltd.htm Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:00:00 GMT The sub-sub-contractor remained bound by the final account agreement despite the sub-contractor having wrongly withheld the sum of the sum of £ 7,362 from the payment of £ 142,901 towards the agreed final account sum of £ 707,500 in breach of that agreement http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/jim%20ennis%20construction%20ltd%20v%20combined%20stabilisation%20ltd.htm Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:00:00 GMT Statements of principle by Akenhead as to whether a dispute or difference capable of being referred to adjudication had arisen and as to a responding party challenging the adjudicators jurisdiction in court enforcement proceedings by reserving its position in the adjudication http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/allied%20p%20%26%20l%20ltd%20v%20paradigm%20housing%20group%20ltd.htm Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:00:00 GMT Akenhead Js guidance to practitioners seeking to enforce adjudicators decisions where the defendant did not participate in court enforcement proceedings actively or at all http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/coventry%20scaffolding%20company%20%28london%29%20ltd%20v%20lancsville%20construction%20ltd.htm Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:00:00 GMT The defendant should pay the claimants legal costs of the court enforcement proceedings to enforce the adjudicators decision, which costs should not be confined to the (£ 100) fixed costs for such proceedings and instead should be assessed summarily http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/southern%20electric%20contracting%20ltd%20v%20mead%20realisations%20ltd.htm Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:00:00 GMT The sum allowed by adjudicators decision should be enforced by its payment by the contractor without any set off within 14 days of the date of the court hearing http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/rok%20building%20ltd%20v%20celtic%20composting%20systems%20ltd%20%28part%20i%29.htm Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:00:00 GMT Considerations as to whether and in what circumstances fraud or deceit was or might be a defence in adjudication proceedings and in court proceedings for the enforcement of adjudicators’ decisions http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/sg%20south%20ltd%20v%20king%92s%20head%20cirencester%20llp.htm Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:00:00 GMT The employer should be permitted to set off the liquidated damages to which the adjudicator in the second adjudication decided it was entitled against the amount of the advance payment which the contractor was awarded in the first adjudication http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/jpa%20design%20and%20build%20ltd%20v%20sentosa%20%28uk%29%20ltd.htm Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:00:00 GMT The adjudicator’s decision in the first adjudication declaring the employers’ entitlement to certificates of non-completion under JCT 2005 should not be enforced by the contractor paying the sum in respect of liquidated damages claimed by the employers http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/hart%20v%20smith.htm Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:00:00 GMT Propositions derived from caselaw as to what an adjudicator was required to give in terms of reasons if he was obliged to give a reasoned decision and the consequences of his failing to do so http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/balfour%20beatty%20engineering%20services%20%28hy%29%20ltd%20v%20shepherd%20construction.htm Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:00:00 GMT The terms of the adjudicator’s decision in the third adjudication did not demonstrate that the adjudicator was apparently biased or in breach of the rules of natural justice http://www.vinden.co.uk/articles/adjudication/barr%20ltd%20v%20klin%20investment%20uk%20ltd.htm Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:00:00 GMT