0191 232 0283
0191 261 6956
info@srflegal.co.uk
Follow us
    • About
      • SRF TODAY
      • OUR TEAM
      • CAREERS
      • CONTACT & LOCATIONS
    • Commercial
      • CORPORATE AND COMMERCIAL
      • COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
      • DISPUTE RESOLUTION
      • DEBT RECOVERY
      • EMPLOYMENT LAW
      • INSOLVENCY
      • REGULATORY LAW
      • FINANCIAL CRIME
    • Private Client
      • FAMILY LAW
      • WILLS, TRUSTS AND PROBATE
      • MOTORING OFFENCES
      • BUYING AND SELLING PROPERTY
    • News & Events
      • FIRM NEWS
      • EVENTS & SEMINARS
      • SRF NEST
    1. Home
    2. Events
    3. Understanding adjudication and arbitration: Fast paced decision making

    Understanding adjudication and arbitration: Fast paced decision making


    On 6th September 2017

    Adjudication is a dispute resolution mechanism that applies to the UK’s construction industry.  Parties to construction contracts cannot contract out of the adjudication procedure.  It is a 28 day procedure allowing for a decision to be made which can then be enforced by the Technology and Construction Court (TCC).

    Arbitration is a type of voluntary alternative dispute resolution governed by the Arbitration Act 1996.  All parties must agree to submit the dispute to arbitration for it to commence.  The arbitrator’s decision is final and binding.

    Recent cases emphasise the need for parties to understand these processes prior to utilising them to ensure that each party prepare successfully.  In this series of articles, we look at a number of these cases to help you avoid mistakes and make the best dispute resolution decision.

    Fast paced decision making

    In the recent case of Amey Wye Valley Limited v The County of Herefordshire District Council, the TCC considered the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision.

    A dispute arose out of an adjudicator’s decision in relation to price adjustment due to inflation.  The District Council entered into an agreement with Amey for the repair and maintenance to the highways and roads of Hertfordshire.  The agreement provided a method to calculate the price adjustment however the parties could not agree on how to apply it.

    The parties resolved the dispute themselves on 21 July 2005 which set out a price increase mechanism (VOP3); however upon needed to utilise VOP3, the parties could not agree on the adjustment required or what the wording actually meant.

    The parties referred the dispute to adjudication in order to determine what VOP3 meant.  Neither party served a notice of dissatisfaction within the set period.  Therefore the adjudicator’s decision became binding upon the parties.

    The parties subsequently could not determine the financial consequences of the decision and they referred the issue for a second adjudication.  The second decision was that Amey was to pay the District Council the sum of £9,500,632.43.

    The District Council commenced enforcement proceedings in the TCC.  Amey argued that the second decision was inconsistent with the first decision, and that as the adjudicator had made a mistake of fact, the adjudicator’s decision was outside of his jurisdiction.  In the alternative, the decision should be severed to correct the error made by the adjudicator.

    Fraser J of the TCC stated that the adjudicator had been acting within his jurisdiction and that he was entitled to make errors in arithmetic when making his decision.

    The case shows that the TCC will not go behind an adjudicator’s decision to correct a mistake as to fact or law unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as in Amey Birmingham Highways Limited v Birmingham City Council, where Amey took the decision to obtain a final determination of the dispute rather than force the City Council to take enforcement proceedings, stating that the adjudicator had made an error in law with consequences of between £25m and £35m.  The court agreed with Amey and the adjudicator’s decision as not binding on the parties.

    In the present case, Fraser J went on to state “errors of fine detail are part of the process effectively accepted by Parliament as a consequence of the process of adjudication” and that “the ‘right’ answer is secondary to the parties having a rapid answer”.

    Parties should therefore be aware that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, there are only two matters that the court can consider when enforcing an adjudicator’s decision:

    1. Whether the adjudicator was acting within his jurisdiction.
    2. Whether the decision was reached in accordance with the rules of natural justice.

    This is a very interesting decision as it sets out that the TCC will not amend or review an adjudicator’s decision making process even where it is wrong in fact or in law in order to uphold the process as a quick method of solving disputes.

    For more information please contact Alexandra Withers


    TAGS: Litigation

    MORE

    • Discrimination at work: They think it's all over, it's certainly not!
    • Financial Conduct Authority- Senior Managers and Certification Regime (Manchester)
    • Financial Conduct Authority- Senior Managers and Certification Regime (Newcastle)
    • Are your cookies baked to the ICO’s Standards?
    • Going Bust - lessons on landlord and tenant insolvency
    • Going Bust - lessons on landlord and tenant insolvency - 2

    AUTHOR

    Alexandra Withers

    ASSOCIATE

    Specialist in Dispute Resolution & Insolvency

    Tel: 0191 232 0283

    Email: Send Message

    CONTACT US

  • 4 Mosley Street
    Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 1DE
    Tel: 0191 232 0283 Fax: 0191 261 6956
    Email: info@srflegal.co.uk
    DX: 61037 Newcastle

    Short Richardson and Forth Solicitors Limited is a private limited company registered in England and Wales under company No. 10572065, authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority No. 637150.

    Short Richardson and Forth Solicitors Limited is a private limited company constituted and run in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 2006. The term “partner” has been used to denote individual senior solicitors employed by Short Richardson and Forth Solicitors Limited.

    Website Privacy Policy

    Complaints Procedure

    • ABOUT
    • SRF Today
    • Our Team
    • Careers
    • Contacts & Location
    • COMMERCIAL
    • Corporate and Commercial
    • Commercial Property
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Debt Recovery
    • Employment Law
    • Insolvency
    • Regulatory Law
    • PRIVATE CLIENTS
    • Family Law
    • Wills, Trusts and Probate
    • Buying and Selling Property
    • NEWS & EVENTS
    • Firm News
    • Events & Seminars
    • SRF Nest