header-logo header-logo

Construction adjudication: beware the counterclaim

13 September 2018 / Digby Hebbard
Issue: 7808 / Categories: Features , ADR
printer mail-detail
nlj_7808_hebbard

With adjudication remaining a common method for resolving construction disputes, Digby Hebbard takes a look at the plus points & potential pitfalls

  • The majority of disputes from UK construction projects are determined via statutory adjudication.
  • The sope of the dispute in adjudication will be deemed to encompass any conceivable defences and cross-claims.
  • As a recent case demonstrates, parties instigating adjudication must be alive to, and prepared for, potential defences or counterclaims.

A substantial proportion of disputes arising in connection with UK construction projects are resolved through statutory adjudication, introduced via the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. A primary objective behind its introduction was to ensure that historically endemic payment disputes were resolved quickly and cheaply to maintain cash flow, and therefore, to similarly maintain progress in construction projects.

Put shortly, statutory adjudication is an informal and expedited process. Adjudicators are appointed from bodies of industry professionals (eg quantity surveyors, engineers, architects, project managers, lawyers) and decide disputes between two parties within a compressed timetable, normally within

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll