header-logo header-logo

Adjudicator fees

21 May 2009 / Sean Brannigan KC , Elspeth Owens
Issue: 7370 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs , Fees
printer mail-detail

Sean Brannigan QC & Elspeth Owens look closely at who pays fees & costs in adjudications

* * * * * *

Parties responding to adjudications commenced under the Housing Grants and Regeneration Act 1996 often take objections relating to jurisdiction, and proceed with their response to those adjudications “without prejudice” to those fundamental objections.

That often poses the following real difficulty for adjudicators: if those jurisdictional objections are found to be valid, and the party commencing the adjudication is unable to meet any liability for costs, how will the adjudicator be paid?

From the perspective of the party taking a valid jurisdictional objection, being forced to pay such fees is obviously somewhat unpalatable. Similarly, however, from the perspective of the adjudicator, uncertainty as to whether any claim for fees against a responding party would be enforceable introduces a highly unwelcome degree of uncertainty, particularly in time-heavy and intensive adjudications, where the fees “at stake” might be very large.

Jurisdictional

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll