Simren Sihota’s Post

Challenging a adjudicator's decision on enforcement: J & B Hopkins Ltd v A&V Building Solution Ltd [2023] EWHC 301 (TCC), Mr Roger Ter Haar KC Judgement 15 February 2023 The pre-action protocol for construction and engineering claims did not apply to proceedings to enforce an adjudicator's award. This means that the specific procedures outlined in the pre-action protocol may not be required when seeking enforcement of an adjudicator's award. In your scenario, it seems that there were two separate disputes involving construction and engineering claims. The first dispute was resolved through an adjudication process, resulting in an award by the first adjudicator. The second dispute was not the same as the first dispute, and the first adjudicator's award was not claimed to be binding on the second adjudicator. In this situation, the second adjudicator's findings and award are considered binding, even if they are contrary to the first adjudicator's award. Although there may have been some doubt about the second adjudicator's power to award payment of a sum found due to the responding party, the court ultimately gave effect to the award. This means that the court recognized and enforced the second adjudicator's award, even if it resulted in payment being made to the responding party.

Hudson's Formula: A Tool, Not a Replacement, in Construction Delay Claims: In a construction project experiencing a 42-month delay, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether Hudson's Formula constituted a reliable basis for awarding compensation for delayed work. This inquiry arose due to the absence of credible evidence substantiating the contractor's claim of lost profitability. The court ultimately held that Hudson's Formula should not serve as a substitute for presenting direct evidence of actual losses incurred. While formulas can be employed as tools for quantifying the extent to which a claim surpasses a formula-based estimation of loss, they are not a dependable primary means of establishing loss itself. #constructionlaw #constructionindustry #arbitration

📢 Attention Construction Claims Professionals: Ever wonder why some contract claims succeed while others falter? Discover our 7-step formula designed to help you craft compelling, robust claims that withstand scrutiny and enable smoother negotiations. This guide ensures your claims are not only persuasive but also defensible—giving you the edge in any dispute. #constructionclaims

Advantages of Dispute Boards in Construction Industry #constructiondisputes #constructionclaims #constructioncontracts

Advantages of Dispute Boards in Construction Industry #constructiondisputes #constructionclaims #constructioncontracts

Recently, the Federal Court issued a significant ruling affecting the crafting of payment claims under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”). This ruling sets forth guidelines for citing contract clauses in adjudication proceedings, marking a crucial development in the construction industry's dispute resolution landscape. Let’s take a closer look for #CaseSpotlight ➡️ Read more at https://lnkd.in/dNUYXx5v #KeepingItBrief

When projects get delayed, costs pile up quickly for all parties involved. But determining who bears responsibility for extra expenses incurred can be a complex matter involving prolonged negotiations and legal claims. While there's always going to be delays in construction, who is responsible for the costs incurred? And how can they be reimbursed? TBH Associate Director, Craig Sandison has been featured on Construction Week Middle East discussing prolongation claims – one of the most common routes that contractors pursue to recover losses from delays they did not cause. Click below to read the full article. #TBH #ProjectDeliveryExperts #Construction

Do you know what the loophole is in re-adjudicating the same dispute? Check out the recent judgment in Wordsworth Construction Management Ltd v Inivos Ltd. Summary extract below. "On the face of it, therefore, a decision to award some of the claim in a subsequent adjudication would seem to offend against what has been described as the rule of thumb identified by Coulson LJ in Sudlows. 58. However, it is important to consider what precisely was decided (my underlining) in the Jackson decision. I have already identified the decision which was to decide the B and D items on the basis that the termination issue was decided against HS. It follows that the Jackson decision cannot extend to deciding the merits or quantum of those items as individual breaches of contract, not least because they were not decided or even considered by the Jackson Decision on that basis at all. As a matter of distinction and as a matter of fact and degree, the claiming of matters which had been dismissed in the Jackson decision only shows that the same factual matters were put to Dr Milner but fails to show that the same claim in law was put to him. Clearly, it does not in itself provide an answer to the question whether what was decided in the Jackson decision was the same or substantially the same as what Dr Milner decided. 59. Since the claim before Dr Milner was one that had not been previously decided it follows that rather than being incompatible with each other, the two claims are actually compatible. In any event, Dr Milner decided that he did have jurisdiction and unless I were satisfied that he was clearly wrong in reaching that decision, I would not overturn it. I have decided that Dr Milner was clearly right, but even if that were not the case, that decision was clearly open to him and not obviously or clearly wrong and it follows that the Milner decision also falls to be enforced." Some useful commentary on other aspects of Adjudication also included in the judgment. I've even highlighted and colour coded for you! 🤓

continue, last part: Upon completion of construction, in-house counsel plays a crucial role in ensuring a smooth transition. Here's a checklist: 1. Verify Strata Title Details: Upon receiving the strata title from the land office, carefully review plan drawings, share unit numbers, and accessory parcel details. If discrepancies arise, draft a letter to the land office with the respective strata title for necessary amendments. 2. Hand Over Vacant Possession: Facilitate the handover of vacant possession to purchasers, normally led by Credit team. 3. Registration of Memorandum of Transfer (MOT) : Stay updated on the registration of memorandum of transfer, aiming for a minimum of 2/3 registered residents before forming the Joint Management Body/Management Committee. 4. Organise Joint Management Body Meetings: Prepare all necessary notices and correspondence to invite all registered residence for a meeting for the formation of the Joint Management Body/Management Committee and/or Sub Management Committees. 5. Strata Management Tribunal Cases: In cases brought to the Strata Management Tribunal, in-house counsel must assess the nature of claims or disputes—whether technical defects or late ascertain damages. Call for a meeting to strategize defense, prepare and file statements of defence, and represent the company in tribunal hearings

Is this the end of using Part 8 to avoid adjudication enforcement? Amidst a rise in Part 8 claims being used as an effort to thwart adjudication enforcement claims, the Technology and Construction Court has recently provided further guidance on when the use of the Part 8 procedure is appropriate in TClarke Contracting Ltd v Bell Build Ltd. Associate, Michaela Patterson discusses how our team successfully acted for the Defendant, Bell, in having the proceedings transferred from Part 8 proceedings to Part 7. Michaela comments, "This Judgment is the latest in a spate of recent Judgments from the High Court which confirms that a party should only bring a Part 8 claim where the Part 8 procedure would allow the Court to reach a decision that is finally determinative of the matter at hand, and it is not appropriate for matters where there are significant disputes of fact." Read the full breakdown from Michaela here: https://lnkd.in/esKK2VFU