|
|
|
The Mock Preliminary Meeting The Branch held a Mock Preliminary Meeting on the evening of the 13th May, 2008 at the Bridge Hotel, Reigate Hill, Reigate. Members of the Committee took part to give attendees a flavour of the challenges that can face the arbitrator, representatives and parties at such a meeting. A scenario had been developed in advance as has two contrasting agendas for the meeting (more on that later) and an Order for Direction which was deliberately drafted in lets say a 'lacking fashion'. And so to set the scene we have the Committee Members, Mr Philip Fidler acting as arbitrator, Mrs Jane Ryland acting for the Claimant, Mr Robin Orme acting for a responding designer, Mr Kevin Trash as respondent builder in person and Mr Roderick O'Driscoll as the Narrator. Now returning briefly to the agendas one had been prepared by Philip who is from a construction background and the alternative had been prepared by Roderick who is a solicitor, both perform the role of arbitrator. It was interesting to observe the differences in their respective agendas, of course neither is necessarily right or wrong it was however very interesting to see the approach of each. What was most interesting thereafter was the description by both Philip and Roderick as to what they would receive when initially accepting a nomination as arbitrator from their respective nominating bodies. Philip commented on a professional institution, such as the RICS. Roderick in comparison referred to the Law Society. I am from a construction background and so much more experienced of Philip's scenario, but I was enlightened by the description from Roderick. Thereafter we had a fun (but education based) exchange of views putting our positions to the arbitrator and doing our best to make his role and that of others a little challenging. After initial exchanges we had jurisdictional challenges, security for costs application and all such possible difficulties to mention but a few. Philip then produced a set of Order for Directions (which had of course been prepared in advance and where at least a little purposely 'duff') for discussion with the audience. Many questions and comments from the audience arose, which was as desired. The level of experience within the audience varied significantly across spectrum and that added to the occasion. From a personal perspective some of it was 'off the cuff' so to speak but that did in consequence make it a light hearted, fun evening. All parties and the arbitrator rose to the occasion such that it was perhaps inevitable that we ran out of time. I can only hope that my fellow Committee Members and the audience enjoyed the evening as much as I did. Comments from attendees are positively invited. Report by Kevin Trash |
||
