Proceedings Arising Out Of Adjudication

Proceedings Arising Out Of Adjudication

Other Proceedings Arising Out Of Adjudication in relation to the Technology and Construction Court

[rtbs name=”technology-and-construction-court”]As noted in other parts of this platform, the Technology and Construction Court will also hear any applications for declaratory relief arising out of the commencement of a disputed adjudication. Commonly, these will concern: • Disputes over the jurisdiction of an adjudicator. It can sometimes be appropriate to seek a declaration as to jurisdiction at the outset of an adjudication, rather than both parties incurring considerable costs in the adjudication itself, only for the jurisdiction point to emerge again at the enforcement hearing. • Disputes over whether there is a construction contract within the meaning of the Act (and, in older contracts, whether there was a written contract between the parties). • Disputes over the permissible scope of the adjudication, and, in particular, whether the matters which the claimant seeks to raise in the adjudication are the subject of a pre-existing dispute between the parties. Any such application will be immediately assigned to a named judge. In such circumstances, given the probable urgency of the application, the judge will usually require the parties to attend a case management conference within 2 working days of the assignment of the case to him, and he will then give the necessary directions to ensure the speedy resolution of the dispute. It sometimes happens that one party to an adjudication commences enforcement proceedings, whilst the other commences proceedings under Part 8, in order to challenge the validity of the adjudicator’s award. This duplication of effort is unnecessary and it involves the parties in extra costs, especially if the two actions are commenced at different court centres. Accordingly there should be sensible discussions between the parties or their lawyers, in order to agree the appropriate venue and also to agree who shall be claimant and who defendant. All the issues raised by each party can and should be raised in a single action. However, in cases where an adjudicator has made a clear error (but has acted within his jurisdiction), it may on occasions be appropriate to bring proceedings under Part 8 for a declaration as a pre-emptive response to an anticipated application to enforce the decision.


Posted

in

, ,

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *