• Early perceptions of allowing adjudication of oral contracts

      Charlson, Jennifer; Baldwin, Robert; Harrison, Jamie (Emerald, 2014-10-07)
      The purpose of this paper is to consider the implications of the admission of oral contracts to statutory adjudication proceedings. A major criticism of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“HGCRA 1996”) was that Section 107 required contracts to be “in writing” for the parties to be able to use statutory adjudication. In response, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 repealed Section 107 of the HGCRA 1996. This paper considers the implications of the admission of oral contracts to statutory adjudication proceedings, whereby adjudicators’ may now have to determine the exact nature of oral agreements. The critical literature review has highlighted that there is a perceived risk that, by allowing oral contracts to be decided through adjudication, there could be an increased risk of injustice (as the adjudicator may have to decide oral testimony about contract formation). Adjudicators may now have to determine the exact nature of oral agreements. The critical literature review has highlighted that there is a perceived risk that by allowing oral contracts to be decided through adjudication there could be an increased risk of injustice (as the adjudicator may have to decide oral testimony about contract formation).
    • When statutes collide: potential recovery of own party adjudication costs

      Hetherton, Tony; Charlson, Jennifer (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2015-10-12)
      Purpose This research examines the potential recovery of own party adjudication costs under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations 2013. Design/methodology/approach The interaction between The Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations 2013 (derived from European Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions) and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 including reference to case law was explored. A qualitative research framework was used to collect primary data through semi-structured interviews with adjudication experienced construction industry professionals. Findings It was discovered that adjudicators are awarding own party costs under the Regulations but there was disagreement on the issues in both the literature and amongst the interviewees. Research limitations/ implications A definitive judgement is awaited from the Technology and Construction Court. Originality/ Value This paper will be of value to construction industry adjudication professionals.