Hetherton, T and Charlson, J (2015) When statutes collide: Potential recovery of own party adjudication costs. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 7(3), pp. 214-230. ISSN 1756-1450
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine the potential recovery of own party adjudication costs under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations 2013. The investigation directly applies to England and Wales, but may be relevant to other jurisdictions. 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 et al. 2009 including reference to case law was explored. A qualitative research framework was used to collect primary data through semi-structured interviews with experienced construction industry adjudication 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 judgment is awaited from the Technology and Construction Court. Originality/value – This paper will be of value to construction industry adjudication professionals.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009; adjudication costs; Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996; Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998; statutory interpretation |
| Index terms: | investigation, adjudicator, case law, late payment, construction industry, interaction, statutory interpretation, Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, judgment, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, recovery, adjudication, England, housing grant, regulation, methodology, qualitative research, statute, local democracy, Wales, interview, jurisdiction, economic development and construction act 2009 |
| Subjects: | Geography, research methods, behavioral psychology, political science, industry analysis, payment, dispute resolution, practitioner, research design and methodology, data collection methods, economic analysis, statutes, legal systems, operations management |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Governance, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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