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 September, 2010

Transcribing adjudication hearings: whatever next?

Tuesday, September 28th, 2010

It may be common place for parties to arrange for a daily transcript of court proceedings to be produced, but I’ve just had first-hand experience of parties using transcribers in the adjudication hearings before me. (more…)

To resign or not to resign: that is the question

Tuesday, September 21st, 2010

The title may be adapted from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, but it is a question often posed in adjudication. Should the adjudicator resign when he is invited to do so?

Most practitioners are familiar with the responding party inviting the adjudicator to resign, often citing jurisdictional reasons for the invitation, but what happens if it is the referring party that invites the adjudicator to resign? Should the outcome be any different to an invitation from the responding party? (more…)

Evidence satisfying the “in writing” test in section 107(4)

Tuesday, September 14th, 2010

Recently I wrote about “in writing” and how adjudicators deal with the issue of “is there a construction contract?”.

Shortly after that blog was posted, I was appointed in a dispute where the responding party challenged my jurisdiction, arguing that there was no construction contract as there was nothing in writing. The referring party denied this, arguing that the contract was “evidenced in writing” because there was a file note that set out the terms of the alleged agreement. (more…)

Can an adjudicator subsequently act as a party’s expert?

Tuesday, September 7th, 2010

The question screams bias to me. Certainly, if the question was the other way around (can a party’s expert subsequently act as an adjudicator on the same dispute), I doubt anyone would think anything other than apparent bias.

But is the answer so black and white? (more…)