Ndekugri, I and Russell, V (2005) Insolvency and resolution of construction contract disputes by adjudication in the UK construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 23(4), pp. 399-408. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 provides that a party to a construction contract has a right, at any time, to refer any dispute under the contract for adjudication. This resolution method requires a neutral third party, the adjudicator to determine the dispute within 28 days after receipt of the referral regardless of the complexity of the issues in dispute. The decision is to be implemented even if it is palpably wrong in fact or law. A key assumption of this legislation is that any mistakes made by an adjudicator can be corrected by reference of the same to litigation or arbitration. It is a major concern that restoration of the parties to their correct positions may become impossible where, after implementation of an adjudicator's mistaken decision, the beneficiary of the decision becomes insolvent. This article is a critical review of all the cases in which the courts have dealt with the effect of insolvency on the right to adjudicate and the enforceability of adjudicators' decisions. Two main conclusions are derived from the review. First, the court may decline to enforce an adjudicator's payment decision where there is strong evidence that, on account of formal insolvency, the payee would be unable to make repayment if final resolution of the dispute necessitates it. Second, the only exception so far to the general right to refer to adjudication arises where the other party is in administration.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adjudication; construction; contracts; disputes; insolvency |
| Index terms: | evidence, referral, housing grant, complexity, restoration, insolvency, legislation, construction contract, adjudicator, arbitration, resolution, implementation, construction industry, adjudication, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, litigation, dispute |
| Subjects: | renovation and retrofit, professional development, conflict resolution, industry analysis, systems engineering, liability law, evaluation and assessment methods, contract type, practitioner, dispute resolution, legal systems, contractual arrangements, statutes, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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