Our chairman, Harvey Mason, introduced Neville Tait, engineer, arbitrator and adjudicator, who has done 57 adjudications over 15 years. Neville came from Cambridge to act as adjudicator in this demonstration adjudication hearing. The case study was based on a CIOB interview paper written by PT. The four above were seated at a table ready for the hearing while Neville gave his short explanation of the process. He explained the steps which had led to his appointment as adjudicator by CIOB. He also explained that, for 80% of actual appointments, he first writes to the parties and holds a joint meeting, such as we were about to hear.

As we gradually discovered, Mr Ridge (PS) of Ridge Brothers is a roofing contractor (the Claimant) who undertook works for Mr K Lark (DB)/ Berwyn Estates (one may well ask “Which?”) (the Respondent). The Claimant’s legal representative, C Getit Associates (PC) opened, the Respondent’?s representative (PT) replied, the Claimant added personal emphasis about how the contract was formed (Berwyn Estates’ conditions), and the Respondent (DB) replied. There was an oral contract (value £86,964) subsequently confirmed in writing by the Claimant on his standard conditions, to which a counter-offer was made by the Respondent after works had commenced. Neither contract form included any agreed adjudication terms so the scheme adjudication under the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 applied. Work was required to start promptly and within 3½ weeks. The Claimant had made four progress payment applications at two weekly intervals up to the contract sum and had issued a variation account for a further £10,284 three weeks after completion of the works. He had only been paid £36,537 under the first application. The Claimant was claiming the balance of its account (£60,711) plus interest on the outstanding monies at the rate of 2½% per month plus its costs in the adjudication and the costs of the adjudication all to be paid by the Respondent. Other significant facts asserted were: (a) the Respondent had failed to issue a ‘Notice specifying amount of payment’ as required under Part 11.9 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts; (b) the Respondent had not issued any ‘Notice of intention to withhold payment’ under Part 11.10 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts; (c) the Respondent’s notebook with notes of the original meeting with Mr Ridge had not been discovered; (d) a Calderbank offer had been lodged by the Respondent after the adjudicator had been appointed; (e) the Respondent’s legal representative claimed that the adjudicator did not have the necessary jurisdiction to hear the dispute, part of which argument is that the Scheme is not applicable to the dispute; and (f) the dates of events in relation to one another are significant in determining what takes precedence (but are not quoted here in detail for lack of space).

After the hearing, the adjudicator published his decision, which he read to the meeting. This is now available on the Branch website at www.arbitrate.org.uk, and there was some discussion on this before the meeting closed. This meeting was the first of a two-part activity, with the second part, the enforcement application, coming on 17 February 2004, when His Honour Judge Anthony Thornton of TCC will hear the enforcement application with two junior counsel.

reported by Adrien Sturgeon