Jonathan Cope, director:

There are 32 London boroughs (plus the City of London), but a quick review of the reported cases over the last five years shows that only one has ended up in the TCC trying to resist the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision: Camden, and not just once.

Camden’s previous trips to the TCC have not ended happily for it. William Verry Ltd (RIP) successfully enforced an adjudicator’s decision against Camden in 2006 and Makers (UK) Ltd successfully enforced adjudicators’ decisions against it in 2008 and 2009.

No doubt Camden thought that it would fare better in its most recent visit with Sprunt Ltd. Alas, it was not to be. Once again it was ordered to pay the sum awarded by the adjudicator. Let me explain why. (more…)

Matt Molloy, director:

Earlier this year I looked at claiming interest in adjudication proceedings under the Late Payment of Commercial (Interest) Act 1998, in particular the exercise of my discretion under section 5. Recently the TCC was asked (in Partner Projects v Corinthian Nominees) a similar question about whether an adjudicator had jurisdiction to award interest under the LPA. (more…)

Jonathan Cope, director:

Well, Christmas is almost upon us and the television is already full of adverts of what we can look forward to watching over the festive period. As well as another heart-stopping instalment of Downton Abbey, I’m rather hoping A Christmas Carol will be on (the Muppets version obviously).

Rather like Ebenezer Scrooge in the Dickens classic, I can’t help thinking that some of the parties who end up in serial adjudications, which are followed by enforcements in the TCC, appeals, deals, etc, are haunted by the “Ghost of Adjudications Past”, or perhaps wish that they had been visited by the “Ghost of Adjudications Yet to Come” at the outset of their disputes, or even before they entered into the contract! One such set of parties might be those involved in PPL v Corinthian Nominees. (more…)