Musings of a busy mind

While the UK has a different jurisdiction for adjudications, under their catchily named Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, the issues of adjudicating payment claim/payment schedule disputes under the "pay now argue later" regime in the Construction Contracts Act 2002 and addressing the underlying merits claims are similar.

A recent decision of the UK's Technology and Construction court of M Davenport Builders Ltd v Greer & Anor sheds interesting light unresisting the enforcement of "smash and grab" adjudications while "true value" adjudications have yet to be heard.


Not for the first time this year, I have on my desk a government contract which suggests that, despite their recent assurances to the contrary, the Government has not learned its lesson as a good contracting party. The contract in question contains a completely unrealistic and unjustified transfer of risk; not because it's a good idea, but because they can.

The time is now right, it seems to me, for greater use of the independent neutral - (1) peer reviewing; (2) probity auditing; and (3) disputes boards. Sometimes an independent, experienced voice is required to curb half baked and ill considered tendencies.