Case Study on Adjudication: Resolving Disputes in Construction

This case study delves into the process of adjudication, particularly within the context of construction disputes. It highlights the advantages and disadvantages of adjudication, emphasizing its role as an interim solution for quickly resolving contractual disagreements. The study outlines key adjudication provisions, including the issuance of notices, appointment of adjudicators, and the timeframe for decision-making. It also details the powers of an adjudicator, such as reviewing certificates, ordering payments, and requesting documents. The case study presents a specific scenario involving Billy Build & Co and Mr. Gent, showcasing the adjudication process from the notice of adjudication to the adjudication claim, including details of the contract, payment disputes, and requests for time extensions. The document provides a comprehensive overview of adjudication as a dispute resolution mechanism in construction law. Desklib provides a platform for students to access similar solved assignments and study resources.

Adjudication 1
ADJUDICATION
By
Course
Instructor
Institution
Location
Date

Adjudication 2
INTRODUCTION
In common language adjudication is referred to as “pay now, argue later” and should not be
assumed that it replaces a court or an arbitrator in any way. It is usually an interim decision to
quickly resolve a dispute arising from the two parties of a contract1.
Adjudication offer the best
Advantages and disadvantages of adjudication
The advantages include:
 There is no cross examination or formal evidence.
 The whole process is less expensive in comparison to other methods of solving
disputes.
 The process is usually stream lined, offering fast solutions, and procedures that can
match the schedule of parties in dispute.
 Seldom lengthy legal submissions.
 If required, the adjudicator can act as the investigator.
 The parties can select the adjudicator.
Disadvantages include:
 Adjudicator powers are usually limited.
 Adjudicator determinations must be enforced by a commencing court proceeding.
1 Barzilai, G., 2003. Communities and Law. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Carnell, N., 2005. Causation and Delay in Construction Disputes. Chicago: Blackwell Publishing.

Adjudication 3
 It is the contract that guides him to perform his duties and has to work within his
limits.
 The statute does not support what the adjudicator determines.
Key adjudication provisions
 Construction contracts should meet all the requirements for adjudication
 If not so the statutory schemes will apply
 The adjudication process should create room for a person at the preferred time to issue
a notice regarding the dispute at hand2.
 Create a time schedule within which and adjudicator is appointed and such a dispute
referred to him before 7 days after issuance of the notice.
 The adjudicator must make a decision within a month after the referral or according to
the time frame agreed by the disputing parties.
 The adjudicator is to maintain high levels of professionalism by avoiding issues like
favouring one party over another and conduct his duty accordingly.
 It is not a must for the adjudicator to act judicially when it comes to matters of
applying the law, all he has to do is ascertain the facts presented.
 The decision /outcome of the whole process is binding and can be altered only if legal
proceedings kicks in to solve the dispute either by agreement or by arbitration.
 The adjudicator is not subject to anything done or omitted especially while conducting
his duties.
2 Chemerinsky, E., 2006. Consitutional law. Los Angeles: Aspen Publishers.
Chern, C., 2014. The Commercial Mediators Handbook. London: Focal Press.
Cyril, C., 2007. Chern on Dispute Boards. Chicago: Blackwell Publishing.

Adjudication 4
Powers of an adjudicator
 Opening, revising, and reviewing certificates
 Make final decisions and ordering the payment of the amount due as stated in the
contract.
 Make a decision on whether there should be payment of interest.
 The adjudicator can request the supply of documents inclusive of written statements
to him by any of the parties involved in the dispute in order to reasonably determine
reasonably the issues before him.
 He organises meetings and questioning of all the parties stated in the contract or their
representatives even though the final decision of the process is likely to come from
written submissions3.
 He can also appoint assessors legal advisors and even experts putting into
consideration that he has informed the concerned parties of the aim of doing so.
 He gives the way forward in regard to the adjudication timetable more so when oral
submissions can be made and the time given for the same, or the limits of written
documentation.
THE ADJUDICATION PROCESS
3 Dupret, B., 2011. Adjudication in Action. New York: Routledge.
Dworkin, R., 2005. Taking Rights Seriously. Massachussets: Harvard University Press.
F, C. W., 2003. Engineering Hand Book. Michigan: CRC Press.
Gaitskell, R., 2016. Keating Construction Dispute Resolution. Massachussets: ICE Publishing.

Adjudication 5
NOTICE OF THE ADJUDICATIONS
This is the most important step of the adjudication process as the claimant serves the other
party with a written Notice of Adjudication in relation to the construction contract.
It is a must for the Notice of Adjudication to state the notice date, nature of contract, plus a
brief explanation of the dispute not forgetting to include the place where the dispute occurred
and the solutions being sought by the claimant4.
The document should also give a clear picture of the respondent’s obligations and rights in
the adjudication process.
It is from this document that the adjudicator derives his jurisdiction in relation to the dispute
at hand. All matters present in the adjudication claim should also appear in the notice
The notice also serves as an effective way of way of bringing about an early resolution to the
dispute at hand and is ten times more effective than an ordinary letter.
Below is the notice of adjudication issued by Billy to Mr Gent:
To: Mr Gent
P O Box
Date,
Dear Sir,
4 Lucy, W., 2012. Understanding and Eplaining Adjudication. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lupton, S., 2013. Cornes's Design Liability in the Construction Industry. New York: Wiley Blackwell.
Lyons, D., 2005. Coulson on Construction Adjudication. New York: Oxford University Press.

Adjudication 6
ADJUDICATION NOTICE
In the light of AECOM Design Build Limited v Staptina Engineering Services Limited
[2017] EWHC 723(TCC)
It has come to our consideration that a dispute has occurred as demonstrated under:
(a) Name of Contract: JCT 2016
Date of Contract: 1st May 2017
Location of Contract:
(b) Issues the adjudicator is to decide:
Payment claims of work done.
Disruption claims.
Extension of time to complete contract.
(c) Nature and extent of the redress sought
 Valuation of Contract work £3794700
 Approved variations £126400
 Variations Awaiting Approval £239600
 Disruption Claim £437900
Total Application = £4598600
This is a notice of the dispute and is required to be referred to adjudication.
To act as the following person has been named in the contract and has received a copy of this
Notice has agreed to act and is proposed for your consideration.
Adjudicator appointed by name:

Adjudication 7
Address of Adjudicator:
The adjudicator is requested to confirm within 2 days of the Notice that he will be available
and willing to listen to the dispute and is to do so in writing confirming his appointment then
the Technology and Construction Solicitors Association will take another 2 days to confirm
the appointment of the adjudicator5.
Yours faithfully,
For ***Billy Builders & Co
(Referring Party)
APPOINTMENT OF THE ADJUDICATOR
The authority of the adjudicator is normally spread out by the contract that exists between the
claimant and the other party. By writing the Notice of Adjudication, the claimant hence
setting the limits of the jurisdiction of the adjudicator making him to work only with the
documents presented.
The adjudicator is supposed to be paid reasonably and the parties are both liable for his fees
jointly.
5 Nobles, D., 2011. Construction Contract Claims. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Noonan, J., 1993. The Responsible Judge. Chicago: Praegar publishers.
Pickavance, J., 2015. A Practical Guide to Construction Adjudication. London: Wiley Blackwell.
Richbell, D., 2008. Mediation of Construction Disputes. Chicago: Blackwell Publishing .

Adjudication 8
If an opposition is presented to an adjudicator’s jurisdiction then he can investigate such a
challenge and must resign if the challenge turns out to be true, or must carry on with his work
if the challenge is false.
Also the Construction Act mainly set out the power and duties of an adjudicator and such will
apply where it is deemed to be necessary but in most cases, usually he derives his powers
from both disputing parties.
ADJUDICATION CLAIM
Below is the Adjudication Claim document prepared by Billy:
As stated in Construction Contract
IN THE MATTER of an adjudication

Adjudication 9
BETWEEN BILLY BUILD & CO LTD
Claimant
VERSUS MR GENT
Respondent
Adjudication Claim
Date
Introduction of Claim
1. The dispute refer to a contract agreement entered by the claimant as the contractor and
the owner for the construction of 40 bed roomed hotel in the place of the unrepairable
Calderlees Hall as the respondent.
2. The claimant, Billy Build & Co Limited is a legally formed company and has its
registered office at and specialize as building contractors as the main business of the
company.
3. The respondent, Mr Gent is the registered owner of the property at Calderlees.
4. On 01 May 2017 Billy Builders and Mr Gent approved the contract that involved the
construction of a 40 bed roomed hotel in place of Calderlees Hall. The price of the
contract was £4497500. The contract entered was both written and oral (JCT 2016).
5. On 30 June 2018 Billy Builders issued a payment claim on Mr Gent indicating a
claimed amount of £3794700 or any other sum that the adjudicator should decide.

Adjudication 10
6. On the same date Billy Builders served a disruption claim indicating a request in
extension of time by 12 weeks or any additional time that the adjudicator should
decide6.
7. Mr Gent did not issue any payment within the time required as stipulated in the time
schedule of the contract that stated that payment was supposed to be on a monthly
basis.
8. Also, Mr Gent did not offer time extension as required. This is as a result of the
variation in the building plans that had to adjust 5 modifications as demanded by the
respondent without following protocol meaning that there was disruption claim.
9. The claimant therefore requests a determination that the respondent be made to pay
the sum of £3794700 to the claimant as stated in payment claim or any sum as
determined by the adjudicator on the basis that a payment schedule of 14 due dates
was provided by the respondent but never followed by the same.
10. Also, if the adjudicator determines that the respondent did offer constant disruptions
to the project then the contract be extended by 12 weeks as requested by the claimant
or as determined by the adjudicator and the respondent be liable to pay disruption
claim in the sum of £437900
6 Seriki, H., 2014. Injunctive Relief and International Arbitration. Chicago: Informa Law.
Strom-Gottffried, K., 2003. Understanding Adjudications. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sullivan, K., 2004. Constitutional Law. New York: Foundation Press.

Adjudication 11
The Contract
11. On 01 May 2017 the claimant provided a quotation of summing £4497500 to the
respondent carry out the following works:
12. Demolition of the existing Canderlees Hall.
13. All the building works for the 40 bed roomed hotel were according to the plans and
drawings presented by the respondents architect Mr Sketch (copies of the said plans
and specifications are attached and marked X)
14. On 01 May 2017 the works stipulated in the contract were started by the claimant.
15. The provisions included in the terms of contract were:
16. The claimant was supposed to issue progress claims of any work done on a monthly
basis as stated in the contract;
17. The respondent was issued with 14 working days to respond to the progress claims,
this is if no progress claims on a monthly basis were not paid;
18. Before the commencement of work the respondent and the claimant agreed that the
claimant was to add any variation in writing and presented to the respondent.
Action Cause Number 1: Inability of the respondent to follow a stipulated payment
schedule as response to the progress payment claim no.
19. As stated in the contract, the respondent was issued with progress payment claim by
the claimant on 30 June 2018 (a copy of the progress payment claim is attached and
marked Y).
20. Progress payment claim matched with the contract as:
21. The claim was presented in writing;
22. Had in it the relevant details to where the payment claim relates as provide for in the
construction contract identify the construction contract;

Adjudication 12
23. Showed the work done in that period was relevant to the progress payment requested;
24. Showed claimed amounts and the due dates for payments;
25. Showed as to how the claimant arrived at the claimed amount for the work done;
26. The contract did indicate a schedule by which a payments were to be made.
27. But the respondent did not make any payments to the claimant as a response to the
progress payment claim.
28. Accordingly, as per under the construction contract the progress payment claim
became due and owing to Billy Builders.
29. Accordingly, Billy Builders seeks from the adjudicator a determination that the
respondent be subject to pay a sum of £3794700 for work done for 14 months as the
amount claimed in the progress payment claim or any other amount that the
adjudicator decides.
Action Cause Number 2: Amounts claimed from disruption claims together with job
variations
30. In addition to the action cause number 1, Billy Builders want the adjudicator to
determine if the respondent is subject to pay an amount totalling £803900 under the
contract for the following reasons:
Disruption of work by respondent
31. The quotation amount provided by Billy Builders and approved by Mr Gent showed
that the work to be finished at an amount of £4497500 was the work presented and
detailed in the plans and drawings provided to the claimant for the pricing on 01 May
2017, the plans and drawings were prepared by Mr Sketch, the architect employed by
the respondent.
32. During the course of the work there were constant disruptions from Mr Gent, who
never followed protocol in issuance of instructions approaching the quantity surveyor