Adjudication enforcement: Partial final determinations and insolvency

Marshall, H (2012) Adjudication enforcement: Partial final determinations and insolvency. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 4(1), pp. 60-74. ISSN 1756-1450

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine two specific circumstances where UK courts may stay the execution of a judgment to enforce a statutory adjudication decision; where a final decision is sought on a discrete point; and where the winning party is insolvent. In this context, there is consideration of what a “binding” decision means for the purposes of Part II of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. A black letter, doctrinal approach is adopted, using two High Court decisions as a focus for wider critical reflection. The cases where a final determination on part of an adjudication decision is successful are rare and will depend on the facts. Despite some unorthodox recent decisions, the likelihood remains that parties will struggle to challenge part only of an adjudication decision. The leading case authorities support the underlying principle of the Construction Act insofar as adjudication decisions are binding and should be enforced or else the Court will impose punitive statutory interest on the debt. This principle applies even in cases where the adjudication decision is successfully challenged in such cases. This paper also addresses two decisions given by Edwards-Stuart J. in the High Court, both of which adopt a novel approach to the relevant issues, and hence this discussion of those approaches demonstrates originality.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: case law; disputes; statutory adjudication; United Kingdom
Index terms: enforcement, case law, reflection, dispute, statutory adjudication, adjudication, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, judgment, housing grant, United Kingdom, insolvency
Subjects: dispute resolution, legal systems, statutes, economic analysis, health safety and environment, Geography, professional development, liability law
Topics: Information Management, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Legal Issues
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here