MCMS Blog

Matt Molloy and Jonathan Cope give an adjudicator's opinion on disputes and dispute avoidance in the construction and engineering sectors.

Archive for June, 2010

Declaring your way around an adjudicator’s decision

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

In Bouygues v Dahl-Jensen, the Court of Appeal said:

“Adjudicators will make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes will be glaringly obvious and disastrous in their consequences for the losing party.”

Even though the possibility of making mistakes was recognised by the Court of Appeal (and both parties, as they agreed that the adjudicator had made a mistake), the court went on to hold that if an adjudicator makes a mistake, the decision will still be enforced unless the adjudicator answered the wrong question. (more…)

Don’t forget your contract terms need to be in writing

Monday, June 21st, 2010

Will there ever come a time when parties can stop arguing over whether all of their contract terms are in writing?

Some may argue that this time will come (maybe next year) when the amendments to the Construction Act 1996 come into force. That’s because part of the proposed amendments do away with the section 107 requirements (agreements in writing). (more…)

Liar liar, pants on fire

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010

This may be a children’s playground taunt, most commonly associated with accusations of dishonesty (it is actually paraphrased from William Blake’s poem, “The Liar”) but, in recent months, the courts have dealt with a number of cases where one party has alleged the other is guilty of fraud (or something akin to fraud).  (more…)

Addressing jurisdiction challenges early and clearly

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

Last month I wrote about rule 6 of Coulson J’s “seven golden rules of adjudication“; his road-map for maximising a party’s chances of having an adjudicator’s decision enforced. This week I thought I would concentrate on rule 2, which I think also merits a comment. (more…)

It’s probably easier to split hair than it is to split an adjudicator’s decision. Discuss.

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

The title sounds like an exam question, but is there any truth in the statement?

Since 2008 and the decision in Cantillon v Urvasco, the TCC has been considering the knotty problem of what to do with an adjudicator’s decision when part of the decision is unenforceable for some reason or other. Long gone are the days when it is a simple “all or nothing” on enforcement. (more…)