Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ANDREW BURR
(MA) (Law) (Cantab), ACIArb, FFAVE (Master)
Adjudicator, Arbitrator and Barrister
Informa Law from Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
The right of Andrew Burr to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance
with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by
any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Foreword xv
Preface xvii
Acknowledgments xix
Editorial team biographies xxi
Table of acronyms xxvii
Table of case report references xxxi
Table of cases xxxv
Table of legislation li
Table of contract clauses and rules lxvii
List of primary appendices lxxiii
Online resources lxxiv
List of secondary appendices lxxv
v
CONTENTS
vi
CONTENTS
vii
CONTENTS
viii
CONTENTS
ix
CONTENTS
x
CONTENTS
xi
CONTENTS
xii
CONTENTS
xiii
CONTENTS
Index 381
xiv
F O R E WORD
Adjudication has been growing in popularity over the last 30 years as an initial form
of dispute resolution, particularly in construction and engineering projects. Usually,
adjudication involves the temporary resolution of disputes by one, or more, adjudica-
tors, such that it is binding upon the relevant contract parties, until it is finally resolved
by the parties’ chosen method of final dispute resolution, mostly arbitration, or litigation.
There are basically two types of adjudication: namely the statutorily-imposed and the
contractually-agreed versions. These two types raise, in general, the same types of
issues of enforceability and the courts of the relevant country will seek to determine
the extent to which adjudicators’ decisions are to be enforced. There is legislation in
force in about a dozen countries, or states, with draft legislation, or statutes, not yet in
force in others in relation to adjudication for construction contract disputes. Many
international contracts provide for adjudication, in particular those incorporating the
FIDIC Conditions of Contract.1 Other international institutions, such as the Beijing
Arbitration Commission2 and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators,3 provide for optional
adjudication.
A relatively common policy thread throughout the world is the facilitation of timely
payment between contracting parties within the construction and building industries by
improving cash flow down the contractual chain.
Although there are many similarities between the different systems of adjudication and
the approaches adopted by the domestic courts on issues of enforceability, there are some
significant differences. One prime example is the restriction in certain jurisdictions of
adjudication to payment disputes and the differences as to what this encompasses. There
is in at least one jurisdiction a proposal that adjudication should only apply to disputes
above a certain financial limit.
Whilst legislatures will have regard to their own national interests (often including the
importance to their economies of the construction and engineering industries and the need
to provide cash flow and at least temporarily binding certainty upon disputes), this book
xv
FOREWORD
provides the first compendious comparative analysis of the approaches of every country
in the world that has legislated, or is seriously considering legislation, for adjudication.
The differences between the jurisdictions are extremely interesting. By way of example,
in some countries (such as Ireland), there could well be a constitutional challenge to
adjudication as not complying with the fair trial requirement in the European Convention
on Human Rights. That is not a problem in the United Kingdom, or, apparently, in other
jurisdictions that have a written constitution. There is, however, considerable criticism
of adjudication in various jurisdictions, in particular with regard to a statistical bias in
favour of claimants in adjudication and the difficulty of achieving fairness in an adju-
dication, which (from start to finish) can run to 28 days, albeit relating to disputes that
would take a court, or arbitrator, 10 to 20 times longer to resolve. The different courts’
approach may be more, or less, supportive of adjudication, with challenges in the United
Kingdom succeeding relatively infrequently and on the East Coast of Australia in some
80% of adjudication cases.
It is clear that professionals and people in the construction and engineering industries
can learn from what is practised in other jurisdictions. Indeed, legislatures (and the judi-
ciary) can and should learn from adjudication models other than their own.
This should be considered as an immensely useful book for all those involved in
the adjudication business, from construction clients (whether employers, contractors, or
sub-contractors) and construction industry professionals (whether architects, surveyors,
engineers, or project managers), to academics, legislators and lawyers who practise in
the field. It should give them ideas as to how to seek to support, or challenge, adjudica-
tions, as well as providing fertile grounds for seeking to change legislation, in order to
incorporate the better aspects of adjudication in other countries. This book provides the
first serious analysis of adjudication worldwide and should be most welcome to all those
involved, or seeking to become involved, in adjudication, or in promoting it elsewhere.
xvi
P R E FA CE
xvii
PREFACE
This book could not have been completed without my expert team of specialist contribut-
ing editors. Anne Eckenroth and Ruta Kersyte (now returned to work in her native Vilnius,
in Lithuania) performed immaculate project management in London and the Foreword
was kindly contributed by Sir Robert Akenhead, who has now returned to international
arbitral practice in my former chambers in Gray’s Inn. First-rate word-processing services
were provided by Nancy Menyere and Sara Meli.
Two friends and colleagues from my new chambers, ArbDB Chambers, on Fleet Street,
London, namely Michael Cover and Murray Armes (now practising solely from Sense
Studio, London), prepared the first drafts of the chapters on the Chartered Institute of
Arbitrators’ and the FIDIC Dispute Board Rules, whilst my long-standing friends and
colleagues, Ragnar Harbst (of Baker & McKenzie, Frankfurt) and John Lyden (of Cork,
Ireland), covered Germany and Ireland respectively. Tony Canham (of ArbDB Chambers,
London) provided a helpful note regarding Mauritius, which will be developed in the first
Supplement, which will also deal with Kenya, whose proposed legislation was learned
about as this book went to press.
My now friends and colleagues, Samer Skaik (of Deakin University, Australia), Philip
Davenport (of New South Wales, Australia), Vincent Liu (of Holman Fenwick Willan,
Hong Kong), S Magintharan (of Essex LLC, Singapore), Rebecca Saunders (of Lane
Neave, Christchurch, New Zealand), David Carrick and Tim Pettigrew-Smith (both of
Hill International, Edinburgh, Scotland) and Vaughan Hattingh (of MDA Consulting (Pty)
Limited, South Africa) each provided erudite contributions (or peer reviews thereof) on
their local jurisdictions, and managed (without exception) to comply with the extremely
strict deadlines set for them by Anne and Ruta.
Ruta assisted greatly with the first drafts of the chapters on the ICC’s revised Dispute
Board Rules and Northern Ireland and Anne researched the position in the United States
of America with her customary care and enormous attention to detail.
Whilst the end result could not have been achieved without each of the above individu-
als (and the personal support and encouragement of my partner, Kesarin Jaitham), any
and all remaining editorial infelicities are mine alone.
Andrew Burr
31 August 2016
xviii
A C K N O W L E D G ME NT S
Enormous thanks are due to all the members of the expert team of specialist contributing
editors for their magnificent efforts.
In addition, the publishers wish to express their grateful thanks to the following bod-
ies and organisations for their permission to include excerpts from their publications in
this book:
1. Joint Contracts Tribunal (various excerpts in chapter 1);
2. NEC (for the excerpt in chapter 1);
3. Chartered Instituted of Arbitrators (the Dispute Board Rules);
4. FIDIC (Dispute Board Rules);
5. DIS (Rules on Adjudication);
6. ICC (Dispute Board Rules);
7. JBCC (Principal Building Agreement 2000);
8. AIA A201-2007 (General Conditions of the Contract for Construction and
Standard Form of Agreement between Owner and Contractor).
xix
B IOGR A P H I E S O F T H E E XP E RT T E AM OF
SPECI A L I S T C O N T R I BUT I NG E DI TORS
Foreword Sir Robert Sir Robert Akenhead was, until 1 December 2015, one
Akenhead of Her Majesty’s High Court Judges, sitting primarily
in the Technology and Construction Court of England
and Wales (the TCC), was called to the Bar in 1972 and
practised from Atkin Chambers from 1973 until 2007,
almost exclusively in construction and engineering.
His work as a barrister took him all over the world, to
places such as Hong Kong, Singapore, many parts of
Europe, Fiji, Australia, South Africa, Indonesia and the
West Indies. He was made QC in 1989. In 2007, he
was made a High Court Judge, sitting in the Queen’s
Bench Division and, in particular, in the TCC. From
September 2010, for three years, he was the judge-
in-charge of the TCC. He is the co-author of several
books, Site Investigation and the Law and Technology
and Construction Court Practice and Procedure, as
well as being, since 1999, a joint editor of the Building
Law Reports. He practises now as arbitrator, mediator
and adjudicator, at Atkin Chambers, Gray’s Inn.
Chs 1 Introduction Andrew Burr Andrew Burr is an adjudicator, arbitrator and barrister,
and 2 and the United having been a member of Atkin Chambers since 1983;
Kingdom he now practises from ArbDB Chambers, on Fleet
Street and as Legal Counsel at Silver Shemmings LLP.
He specialises primarily in construction and technology
matters and is also an affiliated foreign lawyer with
PR1MUS (Vilnius, Lithuania). Andrew is a past chair
of the European Branch of the Chartered Institute of
Arbitrators and has worked throughout Europe and
internationally on a wide range of construction and
infrastructure matters. He is general and articles editor
of Construction Law Journal and recently sat on
the advisory committee for the revision of the ICC’s
Dispute Board Rules. Andrew is a listed arbitrator at the
Beijing Arbitration Commission (whose Construction
Dispute Board Rules he is helping to revise) and the
Vilnius Court of International Arbitration and is a
member of the Independent Standards Board of the
International Mediation Institute.
(Continued )
xxi
(Continued)
Ch. 3 Australia: the Samer Skaik Samer Skaik, BEng, MSc, CPM, PMP, MIEAust,
East Coast ACIArb, is an accredited adjudicator (NSW), a
model with project management and claims consultant and
New South a lecturer in construction management. Samer
Wales as the is the Founder and Director of Construction
principal Management Guide (cmguide.org), which has
legislation been providing claim and project management
Ch. 4 Australia: the consultancy services internationally since 2008.
East Coast Samer has extensive experience in managing large
model: Victoria, construction projects, alongside lecturing, advising
Tasmania, The and writing on construction management and law.
Australian In 2017, he completed his PhD thesis on “Statutory
Capital Adjudication” with a “Scholarship Grant” from
Territory and Deakin University. Skaik has published various peer-
South Australia reviewed research articles, with a particular focus on
statutory adjudication worldwide. In 2016, Samer
Ch. 5 Australia: received a High Commendation in the Australian
The East Brooking Prize in Construction Law for his paper
Coast model: “Taking Statutory Adjudication to the Next Level:
Queensland Legislative Review Mechanisms of Erroneous
Ch. 6 Australia: The Determinations”. He usually appears as a regular
West Coast speaker and panellist in international conferences
model and seminars and as a peer reviewer for academic
conferences, such as RICS Cobra and AUBEA.
Samer’s work was very kindly peer-reviewed by
Philip Davenport, a solicitor and previous Head of
the Legal Branch of the NSW Department of Public
Works and Services; he assisted in drafting the local
statute and its amending legislation.
Ch.7 CIArb DB Michael Cover Michael Cover is an arbitrator, mediator and
Rules adjudicator. He is on the panel of many United
Kingdom and international administering institutions
and is a Member of ArbDB, the Arbitration,
Mediation and Dispute Board Chambers (www.
arbdb.com).
Ch. 8 FIDIC DB Murray Armes Murray Armes is a chartered arbitrator, mediator
Rules and adjudicator and is on the FIDIC President’s
List of International Adjudicators. He trained
as an architect, but now devotes all his time to
the avoidance and resolution of international
construction disputes. He has a long-standing
interest in dispute avoidance and is currently
on the panel of dispute adjudicators for the F4E
ITER prototype nuclear fusion project, one of the
largest energy projects in the world. As arbitrator
and adjudicator, he has given decisions in a wide
variety of construction and engineering disputes and
regularly gives seminars and runs workshops across
the world on dispute resolution under FIDIC and
other international contracts and dispute procedures.
Chapter Contributor Biography
Ch. 9 Germany Ragnar Harbst Ragnar Harbst is a partner with Baker &
McKenzie in Frankfurt, Germany. He is qualified
as Rechtsanwält (Germany) and Solicitor (England
and Wales). His practice, both as counsel and
arbitrator, is devoted to international infrastructure
disputes.
Ch. 10 Hong Kong Vincent Liu Vincent Liu is a construction lawyer, admitted
as a solicitor in Hong Kong, Western Australia,
New South Wales and the Australian Capital
Territory. His principal areas of practice have
included construction and engineering (front and
back end). He has advised and acted for clients
in construction disputes, involving mediation,
arbitration, litigation and adjudication, under the
security for payment legislation, and has acted in
more than 40 statutory adjudications, involving
some of the largest infrastructure and mining and
resources projects in Australia (including the Perth
to Mandurah Railway, North West Shelf Expansion
Project, Gorgon Project and the Sino Iron Ore
Project in Cape Preston). Vincent holds a Certificate
in Adjudication from the Institute of Arbitrators and
Mediators Australia, is a Fellow of the Chartered
Institute of Arbitrators and was also a New South
Wales Law Society Accredited Construction
Litigation Specialist.
Ch.11 ICC DB Rules Ruta Kersyte See above.
and Andrew
Burr
Ch. 12 Ireland John Lyden John Lyden is a construction contract consultant,
chartered quantity surveyor, arbitrator,
conciliator and mediator based in Cork, Ireland.
For over 25 years, he has specialised in delay
and disruption claims and dispute resolution.
He has written and lectured extensively on
construction law from an Irish perspective. John
has been appointed by the Minister under section
8 of the Irish Act as a member of the Panel of
Adjudications.
Ch. 13 Malaysia S Magintharan S Magintharan LLB (Hons) Essex, Dip ICArb,
Barrister of the Inner Temple, Advocate of
the Supreme Court of Singapore, has been in
active legal practice over 20 years, specialising
in construction law, international commercial
arbitration and construction adjudication. He is
the Managing Director of Essex LLC, Singapore,
and holds Fellowships at the Chartered Institute of
Arbitrators, Singapore Institute of Arbitrators and
the Malaysian Society of Adjudicators. He is a
practising Barrister, Arbitrator and Adjudicator.
(Continued )
(Continued)
Ch. 14 Mauritius Tony Canham Tony Canham has been a practising arbitrator since
1977. He has a wealth of expertise in the field, having
been appointed as arbitrator in more than 250 cases
throughout his career. By profession a Chartered
Engineer, he is a Past President of the Society of
Construction Arbitrators; he is also a Chartered
Arbitrator and a Past President of the Chartered Institute
of Arbitrators (CIArb), a Fellow of the Institution
of Civil Engineers and a Fellow of The Academy of
Experts. He is listed on the panels of arbitrators of
various bodies, including the CIArb, the Hong Kong
International Arbitration Centre, the Kuala Lumpur
Regional Centre for Arbitration, the Dubai International
Arbitration Centre, the JAMS Global Engineering and
Construction Panel of Arbitrators and Mediators and, of
course, the MARC Panel of Arbitrators.
Ch. 15 New Zealand Rebecca Rebecca Saunders LLB, BSc, Barrister and Solicitor
Saunders of the High Court of New Zealand, Solicitor
(England and Wales, non-practising), is a partner at
Lane Neave, in Christchurch, New Zealand. Rebecca
is a construction law specialist, with extensive
experience in construction adjudication, arbitration,
mediation and litigation in New Zealand and the
United Kingdom.
Ch 16 Northern Ruta Kersyte See above.
Ireland and Andrew
Burr
Ch. 17 Scotland David Carrick David Carrick is a senior vice president at Hill
International (UK) Limited’s Edinburgh office.
He has more than 35 years’ experience in claims
analysis and resolution, as an arbitrator, mediator,
conciliator, expert witness and advisor. He is a
Chartered Arbitrator, Chartered Surveyor and
Accredited Adjudicator.
Trevor Trevor Pettigrew-Smith is an arbitrator and
Pettigrew- Chartered Surveyor, FRICS, FCIArb and FCICES.
Smith He is a Director at Hill International, based in
Edinburgh, Scotland, and has over 35 years’
quantity surveying experience in the construction
sector, working at a senior level on building and
civil engineering projects. Mr Pettigrew-Smith is a
quantum expert and adjudicator, skilled in preparing
claims and expert reports and is on the panels of
adjudicators for the RICS, CIArb and CIC. He
has varied project experience, both throughout the
United Kingdom and internationally, in a number of
sectors, including marine, on and off-shore oil and
gas, infrastructure, civil engineering and building.
Ch. 18 Singapore S. Magintharan See above.
Chapter Contributor Biography
Ch. 19 South Africa Vaughan Vaughan Hattingh BA, LLB (Wits), PG Cert
Hattingh Construction Adjudication (Kings College,
London), MSc in Construction Law and Dispute
Resolution (Kings College, London), is a qualified
attorney and director of MDA Consulting (Pty)
Limited. In providing commercial and legal
advisory services to both the South African and
international construction industries for the past 15
years, Vaughan has been involved across all levels
of the implementation of the adjudication process.
Vaughan has, together with Professor M J Martiz
(Head of Department of Construction Economics,
University of Pretoria), developed and facilitated the
Certificate Programme in Construction Adjudication
presented by the Centre for Continuing Education at
the University of Pretoria.
Ch. 20 The United Anne Anne Eckenroth LLM (Hons, Maastricht University)
States of Eckenroth and in European Law is a trainee solicitor based in
America Andrew Burr London.
TA B L E O F A C RONYMS
xxvii
TABLE OF ACRONYMS
DCMF Design, Construct, Manage and Finance, a form of arrangement for securing
private finance for public projects.
DOM/1 JCT Standard Form of Sub-Contract for Domestic Subcontractors for use with
JCT98.
DRB Dispute Review Board.
ECC2 NEC Engineering and Construction Contract, 2nd Edition 1995, 1998 Revision.
ECC3 NEC Engineering and Construction Contract, 3rd edition, 2005.
Eng Engineer.
EVA Earned Value Analysis.
EVM Earned Value Management.
FIDIC Fédération Internationale des Ingénieurs-Cornseils.
FIDIC/ FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Building and Engineering Works Designed by
Build98 the Employer, Test Edition 1998 (the “Red Book”).
FIDIC/ FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Building and Engineering Works Designed by
Build99 the Employer, 1st Edition 1999 (the “Red Book”).
FIDICI/DB95 FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Design-Build and Turnkey, First Edition, 1995
(the “Orange Book”).
FIDIC/DB99 FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Design-Build and Turnkey, First Edition, 1999
(the “Silver Book”).
FIDIC/ FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Electrical and Mechanical Works, 3rd Edition,
M&E87 1987, 1988 Revision (the “Yellow Book”).
FIDIC/ FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Plant and Design-Build for electrical and
PD+B99 mechanical plant and for building and engineering works (the “Yellow Book”).
FIDIC/SF98 FIDIC Short Form of Contract for projects of relatively small value (the “Green
Book”).
FIDIC4 FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Works of Civil Engineering Construction,
4th Edition 1987, 1992 Revision, (the “Red Book”).
GC/Works/I General Conditions of Contract for Building & Civil Engineering - Lump Sum
with Quantities, 3rd Edition.
GC/Works/ General Conditions of Contract for Building & Civil Engineering - Major Works
I/98 with Quantities, 1998. Property Advisors to the Civil Estate, Central Advice
Unit.
GC/Works/ General Conditions of Contract for Building & Civil Engineering - Design &
IDB Build Version, 1993. Department of Environment.
GC/Works/ Contract for Building & Civil Engineering - Design and Build Version, 1998.
IDB98 Property Advisors to the Civil Estate, Central Advise Unit.
GC/Works/2 General Conditions for Contract for Building & Civil Engineering - Minor
Works, Second Edition, 1980 (revised 1989). Department of the Environment.
GC/Works/ General Conditions of Contract for Building and Civil Engineering - Minor
2/98 Works, 1998. Property Advisors to the Civil Estate, Central Advice Unit.
GMP Guaranteed Maximum Price.
HGCRA Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
HK05 Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China,
General Conditions of Contract for Building Works, 2005.
HK86 Standard Form of Building Contract with Quantities, 1986, 1999 Revision, RICS
Hong Kong.
HKGC99 Honk Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China,
Genera Conditions of Contract for Civil Engineering Works, 1999.
HMSO Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
xxviii
TABLE OF ACRONYMS
xxix
TABLE OF ACRONYMS
xxx
TAB L E O F C A S E R E P O RT RE F E RE NCE S
xxxi
TABLE OF CASE REPORT REFERENCES
xxxii
TABLE OF CASE REPORT REFERENCES
xxxiii
TA B L E O F C AS E S
Contents
Cases ..............................................................................................................................................xxxv
Australia .....................................................................................................................................xxxv
Australian Capital Territory ...................................................................................................xxxv
New South Wales ................................................................................................................. xxxvi
Northern Territory .............................................................................................................. xxxviii
Queensland......................................................................................................................... xxxviii
South Australia ........................................................................................................................... xl
Tasmania .................................................................................................................................... xl
Victoria ....................................................................................................................................... xl
Western Australia ...................................................................................................................... xli
Tribunal cases, Western Australia ............................................................................................. xli
Ireland ........................................................................................................................................... xli
Malaysia ....................................................................................................................................... xlii
New Zealand ................................................................................................................................ xlii
Northern Ireland .......................................................................................................................... xliii
Scotland....................................................................................................................................... xliii
Singapore .................................................................................................................................... xliv
South Africa ................................................................................................................................ xlvi
Switzerland ................................................................................................................................. xlvi
UK ............................................................................................................................................... xlvi
USA............................................................................................................................................. xlix
Australia
Baker, Re; Ex parte Johnston (1981) 55 ALJR 191 .....................................................................3.93
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 ..............................................................................4.45
Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58 ......................................................................3.9, 3.13, 6.30
Finkelstein J in Protectavale Pty Limited v K2k Pty Limited [2008] FCA 1248 .......................13.6
Hickman v R [1945] HCA 53; (1945) 70 CLR 598.....................................................................3.70
Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1 ................ 3.74, 4.30,
5.34, 6.27
Protectavale Pty Limited v K2K Pty Limited [2008] FCA 1248.................................................18.8
Sugar Australia Pty Limited v Southern Ocean Pty Limited [2010] HCA 1 ..............................4.30
The Queen v Cook; Ex parte Twigg (1980) 147 CLR 15; [1980] HCA 36................................3.93
xxxv
TABLE OF CASES
xxxvi
TABLE OF CASES
Downer Construction (Australia) Pty Limited v Energy Australia [2007] NSWCA 49 ............3.47,
3.71, 3.71
Dualcorp Pty Limited v Remo Constructions Pty Limited [2009] NSWCA 69 ............... 3.52, 13.5
Emergency Services Superannuation Board v Sundercombe [2004] NSWSC 405 .....................3.87
Energetech Australia v Sides Engineering [2005] NSWSC 1143 ................................................3.85
Grindley Construction Pty Limited v Painting Masters Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 234 ........3.83
H M Australia Holdings Pty Limited v Edelbrand Pty Limited t/a Domus Homes
[2011] NSWSC 604................................................................................................................3.76
Hill as Trustee for the Ashmore Superannuation Benefit Fund v Halo Architectural
Design Services Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 865 ...............................................................18.7
Holdmark Developers Pty Limited v GJ Formwork Pty Limited [2004] NSWSC 905 .............3.35
Jantom Construction Pty Limited v S&V Quality Interiors (NSW) Pty Limited [2011]
NSWSC 670 ...........................................................................................................................3.77
Jemzone v Trytan [2002] NSWSC 395 ............................................................................. 3.21, 10.19
John Goss Projects v Leighton Contractors [2006] NSWSC 798 ...................................... 3.52, 3.57
John Holland Pty Limited v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2006]
NSWSC 874 ...........................................................................................................................3.58
John Holland Pty Limited v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2007]
NSWCA 19 ................................................................................................................... 3.71, 3.88
Kitchen Xchange v Formacon Building Services [2014] NSWSC 1602..................3.27, 18.7, 18.7
Ku-Ring-Gai Council v Ichor Constructions Pty Limited [2014] NSWSC 1534........................3.53
Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction v H&M Engineering and Construction [2010]
NSWSC 818 ...........................................................................................................................3.68
Lanskey Constructions Pty Limited v Noxequin Pty Limited (in liquidation)
[2005] NSWSC 963 ..........................................................................................3.71, 3.88, 18.18
Leighton Contractors Pty Limited v Campbelltown Catholic Club Limited
[2003] NSWSC 1103 ............................................................................ 3.36, 3.36, 13.7, 18.7, 18.8
Leighton v Arogen [2012] NSWSC 1323 .....................................................................................3.39
Lewence Construction Pty Limited v Southern Han Breakfast Point Pty Limited
[2015] NSWCA 288 ...............................................................................................................3.80
Lifestyle Retirement Projects (No 2) Pty Limited v Parisi Homes Pty Limited [2005]
NSWSC 411.................................................................................................................. 3.82, 3.85
Lucas Stuart v Hemmes Hermitage [2009] NSWSC 477 ............................................................3.36
Machkevitch v Andrew Building Construction [2012] NSWSC 546 ..........................................3.34
MPM Construction Pty Limited v Trepcha Construction Pty Limited [2004]
NSWSC 103 ............................................................................................................... 3.55, 18.26
Multiplex Construction Pty Limited v Jan Lukines and Lahey
Detailed Joinery Pty Limited [2003] NSWSC 1140 .....................3.9, 3.49, 3.69, 3.71, 13.7, 18.8
Multiplex Constructions Pty Limited v Luikens [2003] NSWSC 2003 ......................................3.88
Musico v Davenport [2003] NSWSC 977 .....................................3.32, 3.48, 3.63, 3.64, 3.69, 3.75
New South Wales Land and Housing v Clarendon Homes [2012] NSWSC 333 ............. 3.49, 3.81
Olympia Group (NSW) Pty Limited v Hansen Yuncken Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 165.......... 3.54
Omega House Pty Limited v Khouzame [2014] NSWSC 1837 ..................................................3.80
Owners Strata Plan 61172 v Stratabuild Limited [2011] NSWSC 1000 .....................................3.78
Pacific General Securities Limited v Soliman and Sons Pty Limited [2006] NSWSC 13 .......... 18.16
Parist Holdings Pty Limited v WT Partnership Australia Pty Limited [2003] NSWSC 365........13.7, 18.8
Parkview Construction Pty Limited v Sydney Civil Excavations Pty Limited (2009)
NSWSC 61 ..........................................................................................................3.48, 13.6, 18.7
Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Limited v McConnell Dowell
Constructors (Aust) Pty Limited [2014] NSWSC 1413 ............................................. 3.35, 3.80
xxxvii
TABLE OF CASES
Pittwater Council v Keystone Projects Group Pty Limited [2014] NSWSC 1791 .....................3.50
Prime City Investments Pty Limited v Paul Jones and Associates Pty Limited [2013]
NSWSC 2 .................................................................................................................................3.9
Procorp Civil Pty Limited v Napoli Excavations and Contracting Pty Limited [2006]
NSWSC 205 ...........................................................................................................................3.49
Rail Corporation of NSW v Nebax Constructions [2012] NSWSC 6 ............................... 3.77, 18.7
Reiby Street Apartments Pty Limited v Winterton Construction Pty Limited
[2006] NSWSC 375 ..........................................................................................3.71, 4.46, 18.18
Roseville Bridge Marina Pty Limited v Bellingham Marine Australia Pty Limited [2009]
NSWSC 320 ...........................................................................................................................3.57
Shell Refining (Australia) Pty Limited v A J Mayr Engineering Pty Limited [2006]
NSWSC 94 ................................................................................................................... 3.51, 3.67
Southern Han Breakfast Point Pty Limited v Lewence Construction Pty Limited
[2015] NSWSC 502 .............................................................................................................18.7
State Water Corporation v Civil Team Engineering Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1879 ............3.67
Steel v Beks [2010] NSWSC 1404 ...............................................................................................3.77
Taylor Projects Group Pty Limited v Brick Department Pty Limited [2005] NSWSC 571 ........4.86
Temwin Construction Pty Limited v Façade Innovations Pty Limited [2005] NSWSC 548......... 3.71
The Minister for Commerce (formerly Public Works and Services) v Contrax Plumbing
(NSW) Pty Limited [2005] NSWCA 142 .............................................................................3.57
Timwin Construction Pty Limited v Façade Innovations Pty Limited (2005) 21 BCL 383;
[2005] NSWSC 548 ...............................................................................................................4.46
Timwin Construction Pty Limited v Façade Innovations Pty Limited [2005] NSWSC 548......... 18.18
Transgrid v Seimens Limited (2004) 61 NSWLR 521 .................................................................3.71
TransGrid v Siemens and anor [2004] NSWSC 87 .......................................................... 13.33, 18.6
Transgrid v Walter Construction Group [2004] NSWSC 21 ........................................................3.69
Trysams Pty Limited v Club Construction (NSW) Pty Limited [2007] NSWSC 941...........3.16, 3.71,
3.72, 18.18
Trysams Pty Limited v Club Constructions (NSW) Pty Limited [2007] NSWSC 1298 ............3.88
Trysams Pty Limited v Club Constructions (NSW) Pty Limited [2008] NSWSC 399 ..............3.57
Walter Construction Group Limited v CPL (Surrey Hills) Pty Limited [2003]
NSWCA 266.............................................................................................................4.32, 13.7, 13.30,
13.42, 18.7, 18.8, 18.40
Northern Territory
A J Lucas Operations Pty Limited v Mac-Attack Equipment Hire Pty Limited [2009]
NTCA 4...................................................................................................................................6.51
Brierty Limited v Gwelo Developments Pty Limited [2014] NTCA 7 .......................................6.58
Department of Construction and Infrastructure v Urban and Rural Contracting
Pty Limited [2012] NTSC 22 .................................................................................... 6.55, 6.56, 6.60
Hall Contracting Pty Limited v Macmahon Contractors Pty Limited [2014] NTSC 20 .......... 3.13, 6.57
Independent Fire Sprinklers (NT) Pty Limited v Sunbuild Pty Limited [2008] NTSC 46 ............ 6.54
K & J Burns Electrical Pty Limited v GRD Group (NT) Pty Limited
[2011] NTCA 1 .................................................................................................... 3.6, 3.13, 6.1, 6.44,
6.45, 6.52, 6.53
Queensland
Abel Point Marina (Whitsundays) P/L v Uher [2006] QSC 295 ...................................................5.7
Abel Point Marina (Whitsundays) Pty Limited v O’Brien [2007] QSC 91 ..................................5.4
Agripower Australia Limited v J and D Rigging Pty Limited [2013] QSC 164 (Wilson J) ......5.10
xxxviii
TABLE OF CASES
xxxix
TABLE OF CASES
Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Qld) v Davenport [2009] QSC 134 ......................5.33
Waratah Coal Pty Limited v Coordinator-General, Department of State Development,
Infrastructure and Planning [2014] QSC 036........................................................................5.34
Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal Pty Limited v Monadelphous Engineering Pty
Limited [2015] QSC 307 .......................................................................................................5.11
South Australia
Built Environs Pty Limited v Tali Engineering Pty Limited [2013] SASC 84 ................. 4.83, 4.84
Kennett Pty Limited v Janssen SASC 20 July 2013 (unreported) ...............................................4.82
Linke Developments Pty Limited v 21st Century Developments Pty Limited [2014]
SASC 203 ...............................................................................................................................4.87
Romaldi Constructions Pty Limited v Adelaide Interior Linings Pty Limited (No 2)
[2013] SASCFC 124 .................................................................................................... 4.83, 4.86
Tagara Builders P/L v AP and L Services P/L [2015] SASC 30 .................................................4.85
Tasmania
R v Macdessi; ex parte Walton [2014] TASSC 64 .......................................................................4.48
Skilltech Consulting Services Pty Limited v Bold Vision Pty Limited [2013]
TASSC 3 ..................................................................................................................... 4.38, 4.44, 4.45,
4.46, 4.47
Tasman Quest Pty Limited v Evans (2003) 13 Tas R 16 .............................................................4.44
Victoria
470 St Kilda Road Pty Limited v Reed Constructions Australia Pty Limited [2012]
VSC 235 ..........................................................................................................................................4.32
Asian Pacific Building Corporation Pty Limited v Aircon Duct Fabrication Pty Limited
[2010] VSC 300 .....................................................................................................................3.88
Branlin Pty Limited v Totaro [2014] VSC 492 .................................................................. 4.13, 4.14
Commercial and Industrial Construction Group Pty Limited v King Construction
Group Pty Limited [2015] VSC 426 .......................................................................................4.6
Gantley Pty Limited v Phenix International Group Pty Limited [2010] VSC 106 3.88, 4.32, 4.35, 4.47
Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria v Wood Hall Limited and Lenard Pipeline
Contractors [1978] VR 385 ..................................................................................................18.18
Grocon Constructors Pty Limited v Planit Cocciardi Joint Venture (No 2) (2009) 26 VR 172 ..........4.31
Grocon Constructors v Planit Cocciardi Joint Venture (No 2) [2009] VSC 426 .......... 3.9, 4.18, 4.20, 4.30
Hallmarc Construction v Saville [2014] VSC 491 ................................................................. 4.6, 4.7
Hickory Developments Pty Limited v Schiavello (Vic) Pty Limited (2009) 26 VR 112 ...........4.31
Hickory Developments Pty Limited v Schiavello (Vic) Pty Limited [2009]
VSC 156 ..................................................................................................................3.9, 3.66, 4.4, 4.5,
4.28, 4.29, 4.32
Jotham Property Holdings Pty Limited v Cooperative Builders Pty Limited and Ors
[2013] VSC 552 .......................................................................................................................4.6
Mackie Pty Limited v Neil Counahan [2013] VSC 694 ................................................................4.6
Maxstra Constructions Pty Limited v Gilbert t/as AJ Gilbert Concrete [2013]
VSC 243 ..................................................................................3.88, 4.21, 4.31, 4.32, 4.33, 4.34
Metacorp Pty Limited v Andeco Construction Group Pty Limited (No 2) [2010] VSC 255 ........ 4.33
Metacorp Pty Limited v Andeco Construction Group Pty Limited [2010] VSC 199..........4.15, 4.32, 4.32
Plenty Road v Construction Engineering (Aust) (No 2) [2015] VSC 680 ..................................4.33
Seabay Properties Pty Limited v Galvin Construction Pty Limited [2011] VSC 183 ....... 4.9, 4.10,
4.21, 4.32
xl
TABLE OF CASES
SSC Plenty Road v Construction Engineering (Aust) [2015] VSC 631 .............................. 4.6, 4.55
Sugar Australia Pty Limited v Southern Ocean Pty Limited [2013] VSC 535 ........4.20, 4.30, 4.32
Western Australia
Anstee-Brook, Re; Ex Parte Mount Gibson Mining Limited and O’Donnell Griffin Pty
Limited v John Holland Pty Limited (O’Donnell (2))............................................................6.1
Cape Range Electrical Contractors Pty Limited v Austral Construction Pty Limited
[2012] WASC 304 ........................................................................................................ 6.31, 6.34
Carey, Re; Ex parte Exclude Holdings Pty Limited [2006] WASCA 219; (2006) 32 WAR 501...... 3.93
Delmere Holdings Pty Limited v Green [2015] WASC 148 ........................................................6.31
Diploma Construction Pty Limited v Esslemont Nominees Pty Limited [2006] WASAT 350 ........6.28
Field Deployment Solutions Pty v Jones [2015] WASC 136 .......................................................4.22
Graham Anstee-Brook, Re; Ex Parte Mount Gibson Mining Limited [2011]
WASC 172 ...........................................................................................................3.93, 4.22, 6.32
Marine and Civil Bauer Joint Venture v Leighton Kumagai Joint Venture [2005]
WASAT 269 .................................................................................................................. 6.25, 6.26
Michael Ebbot t/a South Coast Scaffolding and Rigging Services v Hire Access Pty
Limited [2012] WADC 66 .....................................................................................................6.33
O’Donnell Griffin Pty Limited v John Holland Pty Limited [2009] WASC 19.......3.13, 6.28, 6.32
Perrinepod Pty Limited v Georgiou Building Pty Limited.............................................................6.1
Perrinepod Pty Limited v Georgiou Group Building Pty Limited [2011]
WASCA 217 ...................................................................................................... 3.13, 6.29, 6.30, 6.32
Red Ink Homes Pty Limited v Court [2014] WASC 52 ..............................................................6.27
Riley v the State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 190 ........................................................6.23
Silent Vector Pty Limited t/a Sizer Builders v Squarcini [2008] WASAT 39 ..........6.14, 6.23, 6.24
Thiess Pty Limited v MCC Mining (Western Australia) Pty Limited ...........................................6.1
Thiess Pty Limited v MCC Mining (Western Australia) Pty Limited [2011] WASC 80........6.27, 6.32
Witham v Raminea Pty Limited [2012] WADC 1 ........................................................................6.32
Wqube Port of Dampier v Philip Loots of Kahlia Nominees Limited [2014] WASC 331 ........6.31
Zurich Bay Holdings Pty Limited v Brookfield Multiplex Engineering
and Infrastructure Pty Limited [2014] WASC 39 ....................................................... 6.14, 6.35
Ireland
Bula Limited v Tara Mines Limited (No 6) [2000] 4 IR 412....................................................12.34
Carty-Doyle v Financial Services Ombudsman [2014] IEHC 352, High Court,
unreported 15 July 2014.......................................................................................................12.39
Carty-Doyle v Financial Services Ombudsman [2014] IEHC 352, High Court,
unreported 15 July 2014.......................................................................................................12.41
Clancy and Kehoe v Nevin [2008] IEHC 121 ............................................................................12.54
East Donegal Co-Operative v Attorney General [1970] IR 317 ................................................12.34
xli
TABLE OF CASES
Malaysia
ACFM Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd v Esstar Vision Sdn Bhd
[2015] 24C- 13-05/2015 (delivered on 21 July 2015 - unreported) .................. 13.1, 13.20, 13.21,
13.24, 13.27, 13.51, 13.52
Bina Puri Construction Sdn Bhd v Hing Nyit Enterprise Sdn Bhd [2015]
BK-24-6/1-2015 (delivered on 8 June 2015 - hereinafter referred to
as Bina Puri Construction No 2) ........................................ 13.5, 13.6, 13.7, 13.18, 13.19, 13.21,
13.25, 13.31, 13.49, 13.51, 13.52, 18.6
Bina Puri Construction Sdn Bhd v Hing Nyit Enterprise Sdn Bhd [2015] Civil
Case No BKI:24-2/1-2015 (delivered on 23 February 2015)
(Bina Puri Construction No 1) ............................................................ 13.1, 13.29, 13.31, 13.46
Foster Wheeler E and C (Malaysian) Sdn Bhd v Arkema Thiochemicals Sdn Bhd
[2015] 24C-12-05/2015 ............................................................................................ 13.46, 13.47
Mudajaya Corporation Bhd v Leighton Contractors (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2015]
24C-5-02/2015 .......................................................................... 13.3, 13.29, 13.31, 13.40, 13.41
Ranhill v Tioxide (Originating Summons No 24C-15-04/2015; Originating
Summons No 24C-11-04/2015) ...........................................................................................13.19
Subang Skypark Sdn Bhd v Arcradius Sdn Bhd [2015] unreported in
OS No 24C(ARB)-17-03/2015............................................................ 13.1, 13.29, 13.31, 13.47
UDA Holdings Bhd v Bisraya Construction Sdn Bhd and Capitol Avenue
Development Sdn Bhd v Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2014] 1 NS 1584
(UDA Holdings Case), [2015] 5 CLJ 527.......................................................13.1, 13.4, 13.29,
13.31, 13.39, 13.40
View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bin Puri Holdings Sdn Bhd [2015] 24C-19-06/2015 consolidated
with two other matters (delivered on 11 September 2015) (unreported) .................. 13.3, 13.7,
13.8, 13.19, 13.32, 13.47, 13.52
WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v NS Bluescope Lysaght Malaysia Sdn Bhd
[2015] 24-C-17-05/2015 ................................................................................. 13.7, 13.11, 13.19,
13.21, 13.49, 13.52
New Zealand
Auckland City Council v AG and Garlick HC Auckland CIV 2009-404-1761,
19 November 2009 ...............................................................................................................15.25
Body Corp 169791 v Auckland City Council HC Auckland CIV 2004-404-005225,
19 May 2009 (“Farnham Terraces”) ....................................................................................15.28
Bussell Construction Limited v Manchester Industrial Holdings Limited [2015]
NZHC 858 ............................................................................................................................15.14
Canam Construction (1955) Limited v Lahatte HC AK CIV 2009-404-461 [2009]
NZHC 1476 ..........................................................................................................................15.11
Canam Construction Limited v Ormiston Hospital Investment Limited HC Auckland,
CIV-2010-404-291, 10 August 2010....................................................................................15.14
Cole v Pinnock HC Auckland, 9 Dec 2011 ................................................................................15.28
Concrete Structures (NZ) Limited v Palmer [2006] NZAR 513.................................... 15.14, 15.15
George Developments Limited v Canam Construction Limited
(CA 244/04, 12 April 2005) .....................................................................15.6, 15.7, 15.6, 15.11
xlii
TABLE OF CASES
George Developments Limited v Canam Construction Limited [2006] 1 NZLR 177 ..............18.10
Gill Construction Co Limited v Butler [2010] 2 NZLR 229 (HC) ...........................................15.14
Horizon Investments Limited v Parker Construction Management (NZ) Limited
(HC WN CIV 2007-485-332, 4 April 2007) .......................................................................15.11
Invercargill City Council v Hamlin [1996] 1 NZLR 513 .............................................. 15.24, 15.28
Johnson v Auckland City Council [2013] NZHC 165................................................................15.24
Kariiti Limited v Donovan Drainage and Earthmoving Limited CIV-2010-488-000613.
15 November 2010 ...............................................................................................................15.13
Laywood v Holmes Construction Wellington Limited [2009] 2 NZLR 243 ...............................15.5
Loveridge Limited v Watts and Hughes Construction Limited HC Tauranga
CIV-2011-470-275, 15 August 2011 ......................................................................................15.8
Osborne v Auckland City Council [2012] NZCA 609 ...............................................................15.25
Salem Limited v Top End Homes Limited ...................................................................................15.6
SOL Trustees Limited v Giles Civil Limited [2015] 2 NZLR 482 .............................................15.7
Sol Trustees Limited v Giles Civil Limited HC Auckland, [2014] 1813 ....................................15.8
Sol Trustees Limited v Giles Civil Limited HC Auckland, [2014] NZCA 539 ..........................15.9
Spark It Up Limited v Dimac Contractors Limited (2009) PRNZ 631 .......................................15.9
Spark It Up Limited v Dimac Contractors Limited HC EN CIV-2008-485-1706
[2009] NZHC 704 ................................................................................................................15.11
Tayler v Lahatte HC AK CIV 2007-404-6843 [2008] NZHC 980 ............................................15.11
Willis Trust Co Limited v Green HC AK CIV- 2006-404-809 [2006] NZHC 571 ....................15.1
Yun Corporation Limited v YOT Limited HC Auckland, CIV-2009-440-7656,
26 February 2010 .................................................................................................................15.14
Northern Ireland
Beaufort Developments v Gilbert Ash (1997) NI 142................................................................16.34
Charles Brand v Donegal Quay (2010) NIQB 67 ......................................................................16.39
Coleraine Skip Hire Limited v Ecomesh Limited, [2008] NIQB 141 .......................................16.35
D G Williamson v Northern Ireland Prison Service (2009) NIQB 8 .............................. 16.8, 16.21
Gibson (Banbridge) Limited v Fermanagh District Council [2013] NIQB 16 .............. 16.37, 16.45
Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) v Brunswick (8 Lanyon Place) (2011) NIQB 102 ....................16.39
Mel Davidson Construction v Northern Ireland Housing Executive (2014) NIQB 110 ...........16.47
Northern Ireland Housing Executive v Healthy Buildings (Ireland) Limited (2014)
NICA 27................................................................................................................................16.33
Rogers Contracts v Merex Construction (2012) NIQB 94 .........................................................16.42
Sutton Services v Vaughan Engineering Services (2013) NIQB 63 ..........................................16.41
Scotland
Charles Hanshaw and Sons Limited v Stewart and Shield Limited [2014] CSIH 55 ..............17.17
Highlands and Islands Airports Limited v Shetland Island Council [2012] CSOH 12.............17.19
Miller Construction (UK) Limited v Building Design Partnership Limited [2014]
CSOH 80...............................................................................................................................17.18
Profile Projects Limited v Elmwood (Glasgow) Limited [2011] CSOH 64 ..............................17.23
Ritchie Brothers (PWC) Limited v David Philip (Commercials) Limited [2005]
Adj L R 03/24. .....................................................................................................................17.26
SGL Carbon Fibres Limited v RGB Limited [2011] CSOH 64 ................................................17.20
T Clarke (Scotland) Limited v Mmaxx Underflooring Heating Limited [2014]
CSIH 83 CA76/14 ................................................................................................................17.21
Whyte and Mackay Limited v Blyth And Blyth Consulting Engineers Limited [2013]
CSOH 54...............................................................................................................................17.16
xliii
TABLE OF CASES
Singapore
Admin Construction Pte Limited v Vivaldi (S) Pte Limited [2013] 3 SLR 609..............13.4, 13.6, 18.2,
18.4, 18.5, 18.7, 18.12, 18.21, 18.46, 18.58
Aik Hing Contracts and Services Pte Limited v Deshin Engineering
and Construction Pte Limited [2015] SGHC 293 ..................................18.8, 18.10, 18.16, 18.18
AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Limited v Laguna National Golf
and Country Club Limited [2009] SGHC 260 ...............................................13.19, 18.18, 18.19,
18.20, 18.31, 18.58
Australian Timber Projects Pte Limited v A Pacific Construction
and Development Pte Limited [2013] 2 SLR 776 .................13.6, 13.8, 13.21, 18.7, 18.8, 18.10
Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Limited v Ssangyong Engineering
and Construction Pte Limited [2010] 1 SLR 658 ............................................13.19, 18.7, 18.19,
18.31, 18.39, 18.58
Choi Peng Kum v Tan Poh Eng Construction Pte Limited [2014] 1 SLR 1210 ............13.33, 18.6, 18.57
Chua Say Eng v Lee We Lick Terrence [2010] SGHC 333 ............................................................18.7
Citiwall Safety Glass No 1 see Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Limited v Mansource
Interior Pte Limited [2015] 1 SLR 797
Citiwall Safety Glass No 2 see Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Limited v Mansource
Interior Pte Limited [2015] SGCA 42
Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Limited v Mansource Interior Pte Limited [2015]
1 SLR 797 .............................................................................................13.19, 18.4, 18.18, 18.54,
18.55, 18.58, 18.58
Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Limited v Mansource Interior Pte Limited
[2015] SGCA 42 .................................................................................13.11, 18.10, 18.13, 18.39,
18.41, 18.47, 18.48, 18.58
Civil Appeal No 63 of 2013 (unreported) .......................................................................................18.5
CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Legara (Persero) TBK [2011]
SGCA 33 ...............................................................................................7.20, 8.44, 8.46, 8.71, 11.21
Doo Ree Engineering and Trading Pte Limited v Taisei Corp [2009] SGHC 218 .........................18.7
Elgindata Limited, Re (No 2) (1992) 1 WLR 1207 ......................................................................18.27
Eng Seng Precast Pte Limited v SLF Construction Pte Limited [2015]
SGHC 252 ..............................................................................................................18.4, 18.10, 18.58
JFC Builder Pte Limited v Lion City Construction Co Pte Limited [2013] 1 SLR 1157 .............18.12
JFC Builders Pte Limited v Lion City Construction Pte Limited [2013]
1 SLR 1157 .................................................................................................................18.7, 18.10, 18.21,
18.54, 18.58
Jia Min Building v Ann Pte Limited [2004] 3 SLR 288 ....................................................13.30, 18.40
JRP and Associates Pte Limited v Kindly Construction
and Services Pte Limited [2015] 3 SLR 575 ................13.19, 13.21, 18.10, 18.11, 18.14, 18.18,
18.19, 18.20, 18.22, 18.26, 18.31, 18.58
Lau Fook Hoon Adam v GTH Engineering and Construction Pte Limited
[2010] SGHC 220 (Lau Fook Hoon Adam (No 2) ..............................................................18.46
Lau Fook Hoong Adam v GTH Engineering and Construction Pte Limited
[2015] SGHC 141 (“Lau Foo Hong Adam No 1”) ....................................................18.32, 18.46
Lee Wee Lick Terrence v Chua Say Eng [2013] 1 SLR 401
(Chua Say Eng) .....................................................................13.5, 13.6, 13.8, 13.13, 13.21, 18.4,
18.7, 18.8, 18.10, 18.12, 18.15, 18.16, 18.19, 18.20,
18.21, 18.25, 18.29, 18.36, 18.45, 18.46, 18.47, 18.58
LH Aluminium Industries Pte Limited v Newcon Builders Pte Limited [2015]
1 SLR 648 .....................................................................................18.4, 18.7, 18.12, 18.19, 18.21
xliv
TABLE OF CASES
xlv
TABLE OF CASES
South Africa
Basil Read (Pty) Limited v Regent Devco (Pty) Limited, unreported decision of the South Gauteng
High Court handed down on 9 March 2010.........................................19.32, 19.33, 19.35, 19.36
Esor Africa (Pty) Limited / Franki Africa (Pty) Limited JV v Bombela Civils JV,
unreported judgment of the South Gauteng High Court dated
12 February 2013 ......................................................................19.37, 19.40, 19.41, 19.42, 19.43
Freeman, August Wilhelm N O, Mathebula, Trihani Sitos de Sitos NO vs Eskom
Holdings Limited, unreported judgment of the South Gauteng
High Court case number 43346/09 dated 23 April 2010. ....................19.28, 19.32, 19.35, 19.84
Kathmer Investments (Pty) Limited v Woolworths (Pty) Limited 1970 (2) SA 498 (A) .............19.21
Nordot Engineering Services Limited, Siemans Plc SF009011 TCC 16/00;
CILL, September 2011 ..........................................................................................................19.27
Radon Projects v N V Properties and Gary Stephen Myburgh [2013]
3 All SA 615 (SCA) ...................................................................................................19.47, 19.48
Sasol Chemical Industries v Odell, an unreported judgement of the Free
State High Court, Bloemfontein dated 20 February 2014. ............................19.37, 19.40, 19.41,
19.42, 19.45, 19.46
Stefanutti Stocks (Pty) Limited v S 8 Property (Pty) Limited [2013]
ZAGPJHC 249 (23 October 2013) ......................................................19.37, 19.39, 19.43, 19.44
Tubular Holdings (Pty) Limited v DBT Technologies (Pty) Limited,
unreported judgment of the South Gauteng High Court dated
3 May 2013 .....................................................................................................19.37, 19.38, 19.39
Withinshaw Properties (Pty) Limited v Dura Construction Co (SA) (Pty)
Limited 1989 (4) 1073 (A) ....................................................................................................19.22
Switzerland
Swiss Supreme Court Decision Case 4A_124/2014 (Swiss Federal Tribunal) .....................8.60, 8.71
UK
Alstom Signalling Limited v Jarvis Facilities Limited (No 2) [2004] EWHC 1285 ..................2.45
AMEC Civil Engineering Limited v The Secretary of State for Transport [2005] BLR 227 ....2.39
Ashville Investments v Elmer Limited [1989] 1 QB 488 ..........................................................12.45
Aspect Contract (Asbestos) Limited v Higgins Constructions plc
[2015] 1 WLR 2961 ......................................................................... 13.35, 13.37, 13.49, 18.37,
18.42, 18.50, 18.52, 18.57
Aspects Contracts (Asbestos) Limited v Higgins Construction plc [2013]
EWHC 1322(TCC) .................................................................................................................2.48
xlvi
TABLE OF CASES
xlvii
TABLE OF CASES
xlviii
TABLE OF CASES
Parkwood Leisure Limited v Laing O’Rourke Wales and West Limited [2013]
EWHC 2665 (TCC)................................................................................................................2.47
PC Harrington Contractors v Systech International [2012] EWCA Civ 1371 ............................3.56
Pegram Shopfitters Limited v Tally Weiji (UK) Limited [2004]
1 WLR 2082 ......................................................................13.4, 13.49, 18.5, 18.7, 18.48, 18.57
Peterborough City Council v Enterprise Managed Services Limited [2014]
EWHC 3193 (TCC)...................................................................................................... 8.63, 8.71
Peterborough City Council v Enterprise Managed Services Limited [2014]
EWHC 3193 (TCC), [2014] 2 All ER (Comm) 423; [2014] BLR 735 ...............................8.71
Rainford House Limited v Cadogan Limited [2001] BLR 416 ...................................................2.46
RJ Knapman Limited v Richards [2006] EWHC 2518 ................................................................2.47
RJT Consulting Engineering Limited v DM Engineering (Northern Ireland)
Limited [2002] 1 WLR 2344 .................................................................. 13.4, 18.5, 18.7, 18.48
RJT Consulting Engineers v DM Engineering Limited [2002] BLR 217 ...................................2.39
Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578............................................................................................18.18
RSL (South West) Limited v Stansell Limited [2003] EWHC 1390 (TCC) .............................13.21
Rupert Morgan Building Services LLC v Jervis [2001] EWCA Civ 1563, [2004]
BLR. 18 ........................................................................................................................ 13.7, 18.8
Sheppard Construction Limited v Mecright Limited [2000] BLR 489....... 13.4, 18.5, 18.45, 18.46
Simons Construction Limited v Aardvark Developments Limited [2004] BLR 117 ................13.24
SL Timber Systems Limited v Carillion Construction Limited [2001] BLR 516, para 22. .....12.22
Stubbs Rich Architects v WH Tolley and Sons (8 August 2001, Gloucester County Court ....13.24
Stylo Shoes Limited v Prices Tailors Limited [1960] Ch 396 .....................................................18.7
Systech International Limited v PC Harrington Contractors [2011] EWHC 2846 (TCC)........13.24
Thomas-Fredric’s (Construction) Limited v Wilson [2004] BLR 23 ............................. 13.49, 18.57
Try Construction Limited v Eton Town House Group Limited (2003) 87 ConLR 1 .................18.7
Vent Engineering Limited v Jacobs E and C Limited [2014] EWHC 1058 (TCC) ..................17.25
VHE Construction plc v RBSTB Trust Co Limited [2000] BLR 187....................13.7, 18.8, 13.19
Wates Construction (London) Limited v Franthom Property Limited [1991] 53 BLR 23 18.7, 18.7
Westfield Construction v Lewis [2013] 1 WLR 337 .......................................................... 13.3, 18.4
Whiteways Contractors (Sussex) Limited v Impresa Castelli Construction UK Limited
[2000] 75 Com LR 92.................................................................................................. 13.7, 18.8
Wimbledon Construction Company 2000 Limited v Derek Vago [2005]
EWHC 1086 ............................................................................................................... 2.46, 16.40
Witney Town Council v Beam Construction (Cheltenham) Limited (2011)
27 Const LJ TL55, [2011] EWHC 2332 (TCC), [2011] 1 BLR 707...................................2.48
YMCS v Grabiner [2009] EWHC 127 (TCC), [2009] BLR 211, para 45. ...............................12.24
Yuanda (UK) Co Limited v WW Gear Construction Limited [2010] EWHC 1058 (TCC) .........17.22
USA
Arc Elec Constr Co v George A Fuller Co, 24 NY2d 99, 247 NE2d 111, 113,
n 2, 299 NYS.2d 129, 133 n 2 (1969) ................................................................................20.60
City of Mound Bayou v Roy Collins Constr Co, 499 So 2d 1354 (Miss 1986) ...........................20.63
Hines v Farr, 235 SC 436, 112 SE2d 33 (1960)............................................................................20.64
John W Johnson, Inc v J A Jones Constr Co, 369 F Supp.484 (EDVA 1973) ..............................20.61
Laurel Race Course, Inc. v Regal Constr. Co., 274 Md 142, 333 A.2d 319(1975) ......................20.63
Martel v Bulotti, 65 P.3d 192 (Idaho 2003) ..................................................................................20.62
Neighbors Construction Co, Inc v Woodland Park at Soldier Creek LLC,
284 P3d 1057 (Kan App 2012)................................................................................20.64, 20.65
Perini Corp. v Massachusetts Port Auth, 2 Mass App Ct 34, 308 NE 2d 562 (1974)...................20.63
Roosevelt Univ. v Mayfair Constr Co, 28 IIIApp3d 1045, 331 NE 2d 835 (1975) ......................20.62
xlix
TA B L E O F L E G IS L AT I ON
Contents
Legislation........................................................................................................................................... li
Australia .......................................................................................................................................... li
Australian Capital Territory ........................................................................................................ li
New South Wales ....................................................................................................................... lii
Northern Territories................................................................................................................... liii
Queensland................................................................................................................................ liii
South Australia .......................................................................................................................... liv
Tasmania ................................................................................................................................... liv
Victoria ....................................................................................................................................... lv
Western Australia ....................................................................................................................... lv
EU ................................................................................................................................................. lvi
Germany........................................................................................................................................ lvi
Hong Kong ................................................................................................................................... lvii
Ireland .......................................................................................................................................... lvii
Malaysia ....................................................................................................................................... lvii
Mauritius ....................................................................................................................................... lix
New Zealand ................................................................................................................................. lix
Northern Ireland ............................................................................................................................. lx
Scotland.......................................................................................................................................... lx
Singapore ...................................................................................................................................... lxi
South Africa ................................................................................................................................ lxiv
UK ............................................................................................................................................... lxiv
UN ................................................................................................................................................ lxv
USA.............................................................................................................................................. lxv
li
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
lii
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
liii
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
s 93 .......................................................5.23 Regulations
s 94 .......................................................5.23 Administrative Arrangements (Administration
s 95(1) ..................................................5.23 of Building and Construction Industry
s 100(4) .......................................3.88, 5.40 Security of Payment Act) Proclamation
s 107 .....................................................5.28 2013 (SA). ................................................4.77
s 114 .....................................................5.17 Building and Construction Industry
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Regulations
Payment Amendment Act 2011 (SA) .................................................4.78
2014 (Qld) ..................................................3.2 s 5 .........................................................4.78
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act s 6 .........................................................4.82
(Queensland) ............................................5.23 s 18(2) ..................................................4.78
s 95(4) ..................................................5.24 s 27 .......................................................4.78
s 96(1) ..................................................5.24
s 96(2) ..................................................5.24 Tasmania
s 97 .......................................................5.25
s 126 .....................................................5.25 Legislation
s 157(2) ................................................5.23 Building Act 2000 ........................................4.39
Judicial Review Act .....................................5.32 Building and Construction Industry
part 3 s 20 .............................................5.32 Security of Payment Amendment
part 5 ....................................................5.33 Bill 2015 (Tas) ..................................3.2, 4.54
s 18(2) ..................................................5.34 s 38A ....................................................4.54
Schedule 1, part 2 .................................5.32 Building and Construction Industry
Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Security of Payment Act
Act 2007 (Act No 37 of 2007) .................5.32 2009 (Tas) ..............................3.2, 4.39, 19.73
s 90-91..................................................5.32 s 3 .........................................................4.39
s 91 .......................................................5.32 s 7(3) ....................................................4.39
Subcontractors’ Charges Act 1974 .................5.1 s 15(2)(b).....................................4.39, 4.39
s 19(3)(a) .....................................4.39, 4.39
s 19(3)(b)..............................................4.39
Regulations
s 21(8) ..................................................4.39
Supreme Court Rules 2000 ..........................4.43
s 22 .......................................................4.43
rule 627(2)(a) .......................................4.43
s 23(2) ..................................................4.39
s 25(7) ..................................................4.39
South Australia
s 30 .......................................................4.41
Legislation s 31(4) ..................................................4.43
Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) ...............4.77 s 31(7) ..................................................4.43
Building and Construction Industry s 35 .......................................................4.41
Security of Payment Act s 36 .......................................................4.42
2009 (SA) ..................................3.2, 3.2, 3.16, s 38 .......................................................4.53
4.76, 5.27, 19.73 s 40(iv)-(v) ...........................................4.39
s 13(4) ..................................................4.78 s 45 .......................................................4.44
s 14(4)(b)(ii) .........................................4.78 Building and Construction Industry
s 17(3)(e) ..............................................4.78 Security of Payment Amendment
s 21(3) ..................................................4.78 Act (2015) (Tas) .......................................3.93
s 26 .......................................................4.79 Contractors’ Debts Act 1939 (Tas) ...............4.38
s 27 .......................................................5.27 Judicial Review Act 2000 (Tas) ...................4.44
Building Work Contractors Act
1995..........................................................4.82 Regulations
s 6 .........................................................4.85 Supreme Court Rules 2000 ..........................4.43
Worker’s Liens Act 1893 (SA).....................4.77 rule 627(2)(a) .......................................4.43
liv
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
lv
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
lvi
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
lvii
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
lviii
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
lix
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
lx
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
lxi
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
lxii
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
lxiii
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
lxiv
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
Regulations Regulations
Civil Procedure Rules ....................................2.3 AAA Rules on Construction Industry
Part 7 ....................................................2.42 Mediation Procedures .................20.42, 20.47
Part 8 .............................................2.3, 2.42 s 15.3.2 ...............................................20.42
Part 24 ..................................................2.42 AAA Construction Industry Initial Decision
Insolvency Rules 1986 .................................2.45 Maker (IDM) Procedure, 2009
rule 490 .......................................2.45, 2.48 section I-2...........................................20.53
Scheme for Construction Contracts section I-3(a) ......................................20.54
(England and Wales) Regulations 1998 section I-3(b) ......................................20.54
(Amendment) (England) Regulations
2011 ............................................17.24, 17.25,
17.26, 19.29
lxv
TAB LE O F C O N T R A C T C L AUS E S AND RUL E S
Contents
Contract Clauses and Rules ........................................................................................................... lxvii
International ............................................................................................................................... lxvii
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) ............................................................................. lxvii
Fédération International des Ingénieurs-Conseils (FIDIC) (International Federation
of Consulting Engineers)..................................................................................................... lxvii
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) ........................................................................... lxix
Ireland ......................................................................................................................................... lxix
Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI) ................................................................. lxix
South Africa ................................................................................................................................ lxix
Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) ............................................................... lxix
Joint Building Contract Committee (JBCC) ........................................................................... lxix
South African Institution of Civil Engineering (SAICE)........................................................ lxix
South African National Standards Authority ........................................................................... lxx
UK ................................................................................................................................................ lxx
Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) ......................................................................................... lxx
Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) 1.2........................................................................................... lxx
USA............................................................................................................................................. lxxi
American Arbitration Association (AAA) .............................................................................. lxxi
American Institute of Architects (AIA)................................................................................... lxxi
lxvii
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES AND RULES
lxviii
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES AND RULES
lxix
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES AND RULES
lxx
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES AND RULES
lxxi
P R I M A RY A P P E NDI CE S
A The UK Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) and its
Australian Equivalents
B The UK Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) and its
International Equivalents
C The Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (as amended)
and its Australian Equivalents
D The Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (as amended)
and its International Equivalents
lxxiii
O N L I N E R E S OURCE S
lxxiv
S E C O N D A RY A P P E NDI CE S
1.1 England and Wales Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (1996
Chapter 53)
1.2 England and Wales Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales)
Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No 649)
1.3 England and Wales Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act
2009
1.4 England and Wales Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales)
Regulations 1998 (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2011
(SI 2011 No 2333)
2. Australia: Capital Territory Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act
2009
3. Australia: New South Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999
Wales
4.1 Australia: Northern Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act 2004
Territory of Australia
4.2 Australia: Northern Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Regulations 2010
Territory of Australia
5.1 Australia: Queensland Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004
5.2 Australia: Queensland Adjudicator Grading and Referral Policy 2015
6. Australia: South Australia Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009
7. Australia: Tasmania Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009
8.1 Australia: Victoria Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002
8.2 Australia: Victoria Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2006
9.1 Australia: West Australia Construction Contracts Act 2004
9.2 Australia: West Australia Construction Contracts Regulations 2004
10. CIArb Dispute Board CIArb Dispute Board Rules 2014
Rules
11.1 FIDIC General Conditions of Dispute Board Agreement 2010
11.2 FIDIC FIDIC Guidance Memorandum to Users of the 1999 Conditions
of Contract dated April 2013
(Continued )
lxxv
Legislation, Rules And Contracts
Introduction 1.1
The United Kingdom 1.2
Australia: The East and West Coast models 1.11
Other Commonwealth jurisdictions 1.13
Civil law and mixed jurisdictions 1.14
Contractual régimes and published rules 1.16
Introduction
“‘Where shall I begin, please your Majesty?’ he asked. ‘Begin at the beginning,’ the King
said, gravely, and go on till you come to the end: then stop”1
1.1 It has felt a little like herding cats trying to find some coherent means of bring-
ing together the incredibly diverse adjudication régimes covered in this publication. In
the final analysis, the great “scheme of things” seems, most logically, to be to adopt the
following broad approach:
1 The United Kingdom (by way of comparator);
2 Australia: the East and West Coast models;
3 Other Commonwealth jurisdictions;
4 Civil law and other jurisdictions;
5 Contractual régimes and published rules.
1
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANISATION
1.3 The green form (for nominated sub-contractors) was originally issued in 1963
and was revised in April 1978 to include clause 13B, as follows (under the side heading
“Contractor’s claims not agreed by the Sub-Contractor – appointment of Adjudicator”):
“(1)(a) If the Sub-Contractor, at the date of the written notice of the Contractor issued
under Clause 13A (2)(c) of the Sub-Contract, does not agree the amount (or any part
thereof ) specified in that notice which the Contractor intends to set-off, the Subcon-
tractor by registered post or recorded delivery a written statement setting out the
reasons for such inability to agree and particulars of any counterclaim against the
Contractor arising out of this Sub-Contractor considers he is entitled, provided always
that he shall have quantified such counterclaim against the Contractor arising out of
this Sub-Contract to which the Sub-Contractor considers he is entitled, provided always
that he shall have quantified such counterclaim in detail and with reasonable accuracy
(which statement and counterclaim, if any, shall not however be binding insofar as
the Sub-Contractor may amend it in preparing his pleadings for the Arbitration pursu-
ant to the notice of arbitration referred to in sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph) and
shall at the same time
(i) give notice of arbitration to the contractor; and
(ii) request action by an adjudicator in accordance with the right given in paragraph
(b) hereof (and immediately inform the contractor of such request) and send by
registered post or recorded delivery a copy of the aforesaid statement and the
written notice of the contractor to which that statement relates and the aforesaid
counterclaim (if any).
(b) Subject to the provisions of the clause and the clauses 11(b) and 13A of the sub-
contract shall be entitled to request the person named as the adjudicator in Part XIII
of the Appendix to the sub-contract (hereinafter called ‘the adjudicator’) to act as the
adjudicator to decide those matters referable to the adjudicator under the provisions
of this clause. In the event of such person being unable or unwilling to act as the
adjudicator a person appointed by him shall be the adjudicator in his place. Provided
that no adjudicator shall be appointed who has any interest in this sub-contract or the
main contract of which this sub-contract is part or in other contracts or sub-contracts
in which the contractor or the sub-contractor is engaged.
(2) Upon receipt of the aforesaid statement the contractor may within fourteen days
from the date of such receipt send to the Adjudicator by registered post or recorded
delivery a written statement with a copy to the sub-contractor setting out brief par-
ticulars of his defence to any counterclaim by the sub-contractor.
(3)(a) Within seven days of receipt of any written statement by the contractor under
sub-clause (2) hereof or on the expiry of the time limit to the Contractor referred to
in sub-clause (2) hereof, whichever is the earlier, the adjudicator, without requiring any
further statements than those submitted to him under sub-clause (1) and where relevant
sub-clause (2) hereof (save only such further written statements as may appear to the
adjudicator to be necessary to clarify or explain any ambiguity in the written state-
ments of either the contractor or the sub-contractor) and without hearing the contractor
or sub-contractor in person, shall, subject to paragraph (b) hereof, in his absolute
2
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANISATION
discretion and without giving reasons decide in respect of the amount notified by the
contractor under clause 13A(2)(b) of this sub-contract:
i. whether the whole or any part of such amount shall be retained by the contrac-
tor; or
ii. whether the whole or any part of such shall be deposited, for security pending
arbitration, by the contractor with the Trustee-Stakeholder referred to sub-clause
(5) hereof; or
iii. whether the whole or any part of such amount shall be paid by the contractor
to the sub-contractor.
The adjudicator’s decision shall be binding upon the contractor and the sub-contractor until
the matters upon which he has given his decision have been settled by agreement or deter-
mined by an arbitrator or the courts.
(b) The adjudicator shall reach such decision under paragraph (a) hereof as he consid-
ers in all the circumstances of the dispute to be fair, reasonable and necessary, and
such decision shall deal with the whole amount set-off by the Contractor under clause
13A(2) of this sub-contract.
(c) The adjudicator shall immediately notify in writing the contractor and the sub-
contractor of his decision under paragraph (a) hereof.
(4)(a) Where any decision of the adjudicator notified under sub-clause (3)(c) hereof
requires the contractor to deposit an amount with the Trustee-Stakeholder referred to
in sub-clause (5) hereof, the contractor shall thereupon pay such amount to the payee
hereinafter expressed provided that the contractor shall not be obliged to pay a sum
greater than the amount due from the contractor under clause 11(b) of this sub-contract
in respect of which the contractor has exercised the right of set-off referred to in
clause 13A(2) of this sub-contract.
(b) Where any decision of the Adjudicator notified under sub-clause (3)(c) hereof
requires the contractor to pay an amount to the sub-contractor to pay an amount to
the sub-contractor, such amount shall be paid by the contractor immediately upon
receipt of the decision of the adjudicator but subject to the same proviso as set out
in paragraph (a) hereof.
(5) The payee named in Part XIII of the appendix to this sub-contract (in this sub-
contract called ‘the Trustee-Stakeholder’) shall hold any sum received under the provi-
sions of sub-clauses (3) and (4) hereof in trust for the contractor and sub-contractor
until such time as:
the arbitrator appointed pursuant to the notice of arbitration given by the sub-
contractor under sub-clause (1)(a)(i) hereof; or
the contractor and the sub-contractor in a joint letter signed by each of them or
on their behalf
shall otherwise direct and shall, in either of the above cases, dispose of the said sums as may
be directed by the arbitrator, or, failing any direction by the arbitrator, as the contractor and
sub-contractor shall jointly determine. The Trustee-Stakeholder shall deposit the sum received
3
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANISATION
in a Deposit Account in the name of the Trustee-Stakeholder but shall add the interest to the
sum deposited. The Trustee-Stakeholder shall be entitled to deduct his reasonable and proper
charges from the sum deposited (including any interest added thereto). The sub-contractor
shall notify the Trustee-Stakeholder of the name and address of the Adjudicator and arbitrator
referred to above.
(6) The arbitrator appointed pursuant to such Notice of Arbitration may in his absolute
discretion at any time before his final award on the application of either party vary
or cancel the decision of the adjudicator given under sub-clause (3) hereof if it appears
just and reasonable to him so to do.
(7) Any action taken by the contractor under clause 13A(2) of this sub-contract and
by the sub-contract in respect of any counterclaim under sub-clause (1)(a) hereof is
without prejudice to similar action by the contractor or sub-contractor as the case may
be if and when further sums become due to the sub-contractor.
(8) The Fee of the adjudicator shall be paid by the sub-contractor within 28 days of
the date of the decision of the adjudicator given under sub-clause (3) hereof but the
arbitrator appointed pursuant to the notice of arbitration under sub-clause (1)(a)(i)
hereof shall in his final award settle the responsibility of the contractor or sub-contractor
or both payment of the fee or any part thereof and where relevant for the charges of
the Trustee-Stakeholder or any part thereof.”
1.4 Subject to clause numbering changes, the blue form (for non-nominated sub-
contractors) contained an identical provision, in clause 16 thereof.
1.5 The 1980 edition of the JCT standard form of Nominated Sub-Contract NSC/4a
contained the following revised version of clause 13B (above) in clause 24, as follows:
2. Subject to the provisions of the clause 24 and of clauses 21.3 and 23 the
sub-contractor shall be entitled to request the adjudicator named in the Tender,
Schedule 2, item 6 to act as the adjudicator to decide those matters referable
to the adjudicator under the provisions of clause 24. In the event of the
above-named being unable or unwilling to act as the adjudicator a person
appointed by the above-named shall be the adjudicator in his place. Provided
that no person shall act as the adjudicator who has any interest in the sub-
contract or the main contract of which the sub-contract is part or in other
contracts or sub-contracts in which the contractor or sub-contractor is engaged
unless the contractor, sub-contractor and the adjudicator so interested other-
wise agree in writing within a reasonable time of the adjudicator’s interest
becoming apparent.
Upon receipt of the aforesaid statement the Contractor may within 14 days from the date of
such receipt send to the adjudicator by registered post or recorded delivery a written statement
with a copy to the sub-contractor setting out brief particulars of his defence to any counter-
claim by the subcontractor.
.1 Within seven days of receipt of any written statement by the contractor under
clause 24.2 or on the expiry of the time limit to the contractor referred to in
clause 24.2 whichever is the earlier, the adjudicator, without requiring any further
statements than those submitted to him under clause 24.1 and where relevant
clause 24.2 (save only such further written statements as may appear to the
adjudicator to be necessary to clarify or explain any ambiguity in the written
statements of either the contractor or the sub-contractor) and without hearing
the contractor or sub-contractor in person, shall, subject to clause 24.3.2, in his
absolute discretion and, without giving reasons, decide, in respect of the amount
notified by the contractor under clause 23.3.3, whether the whole or any of such
amount shall be dealt with as follows:
.1.1. shall be retained by the contractor; or
.1.2. shall, pending arbitration, be deposited by the contractor for security with
the Trustee-Stakeholder named in the Tender, Schedule 2, item 6; or
.1.3. shall be paid by the contractor to the sub-contractor; or
.1.4. any combination of the courses of action set out in clause 24.3.2, 24.3.1–2
and 24.3.1–3.
2. The adjudicator shall reach such decision under clause 24.3.1 as he considers to
be fair, reasonable and necessary in all the circumstances of the dispute as set
out in the statements referred to in clause 24.1 to 3, and such decision shall deal
with the whole amount set off by the contractor under clause 23.2.
3. The adjudicator shall immediately notify in writing the contractor and the sub-
contractor of his decision under clause 24.3.1.
Where any decision of the adjudicator notified under clause 24.3.3 requires the contractor to
deposit an amount with the Trustee-Stakeholder, the contractor shall thereupon pay such
amount to the Trustee-Stakeholder to hold upon the terms hereinafter expressed provided that
the contractor shall not be obliged to pay a sum greater than the amount due from the Con-
tractor under clause 21.3 in respect of which the Contractor has exercised the right to set-off
referred to in clause 23.2.
5
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANISATION
Where any decision of the Adjudicator notified under clause 24.3.3 requires the contractor
to pay an amount to the sub-contractor, such amount shall be paid by the contractor imme-
diately upon receipt of the decision of the adjudicator but subject to the same proviso as sent
out in clause 24.4.1.
The Trustee-Stakeholder shall hold any sum received under the provisions of clauses 24.3
and 24.4 in trust for the contractor and sub-contractor until such time as:
.1 the arbitrator appointed pursuant to the notice of arbitration given by the sub-
contractor under clause 24.1.1.1; or
.2 the contractor and sub-contractor in a joint letter signed by each of them or on
their behalf,
shall otherwise direct and shall, in either of the above cases, forthwith dispose
of the said sums as may be directed by the arbitrator, as the contractor and
sub-contractor shall jointly determine. The Trustee-Stakeholder shall deposit
the sum received in a deposit account in the name of the Trustee-Stakeholder
but shall add the interest to the sum deposited. The Trustee-Stakeholder shall
be entitled to deduct the reasonable and proper charges from the sum deposited
(including any interest added thereto). The sub-contractor shall notify the
Trustee-Stakeholder of the name and address of the adjudicator and arbitrator
referred to in clause 24.
Where the Trustee-Stakeholder is a deposit-taking Bank then sums so received by it under
the provisions of clause 24.3 and 24.4 may, notwithstanding the trust imposed be held by the
Trustee-Stakeholder as an ordinary bank deposit to the credit of an account of the Bank as a
Trustee-Stakeholder re the contractor and sub-contractor referred to herein; and in respect of
such deposit the Trustee-Stakeholder shall pay such usual interest which shall accrue to and
form part of the deposit subject to the right of the Trustee-Stakeholder to deduct its reasonable
and proper charges and any tax in respect of such interest from the sum deposited.
The arbitrator appointed pursuant to the notice of arbitration given under clause 24.1.1.1
may in his absolute discretion at any time before his final award on the application of either
party vary or cancel the decision of the adjudicator give under clause 24.3 if it appears just
and reasonable to him so to do.
Any action taken by the Contractor under clause 23.2 and by the sub-contractor in respect
of any counterclaim under clause 24.1.1 is without prejudice to similar action by the contractor
or sub-contractor as the case may be if and when further sums become due to the
sub-contractor.
The fee of the adjudicator shall be paid by the sub-contractor but the arbitrator appointed
pursuant to the notice of arbitration under clause 24.1.1.1 shall in his final award settle the
responsibility of the contractor or sub-contractor or both payment of the fee or any part thereof
and where relevant for the charges of the Trustee-Stakeholder or any part thereof.”
1.6 In 1989, the JCT standard form of sub-contract conditions for sub-contractors named
under the JCT Intermediate Form of Building Contract contained clause 22, as follows:
6
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANISATION
no statement by the contractor under clause 22.2 has been received by the adjudica-
tor within the time limit set out in clause 22.2, then within seven days of the
expiry of that time limit, or
a statement by the contractor under clause 22.2 has been received within that time
limit, then within seven days of receipt by the adjudicator of such statement,
the adjudicator without requiring any further statements than those submitted to him under
clause 22.1 and where relevant clause 22.2 (save only such further written statements as may
7
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANISATION
appear to the adjudicator to be necessary to clarify or explain any ambiguity in the written
statements of either the contractor or the sub-contractor) and without hearing the contractor
or subcontractor in person, shall, subject to clause 22.3.2, in his absolute discretion and without
giving reasons, decide in respect of the amount notified by the contractor under clause 21.2.2
whether the whole part or any part of such amount shall be dealt with as follows:
.1 the arbitrator appointed pursuant to the notice of arbitration given by the sub-
contractor under clause 22.1.1.1; or
.2 the contractor and sub-contractor in a joint letter signed by each of them or on
their behalf,
shall otherwise direct and shall, in either of the above cases, forthwith dispose
of the said sums as may be directed by the arbitrator, or failing any direction
by the arbitrator as the contractor and sub-contractor shall jointly determine.
The Trustee-Stakeholder shall deposit the sum received in a deposit account
in the name of the Trustee-Stakeholder but shall add the interest to the sum
deposited. The Trustee-Stakeholder shall be entitled to deduct his reasonable
and proper charges from the sum deposited (including any interest added
thereto). The sub-contractor shall notify the Trustee-Stakeholder of the name
and address of the adjudicator and arbitrator referred to in clause 22.
8
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANISATION
1.7 The 1980 edition of the JCT Sub-Contract Conditions for Use With the Domestic
Sub-contract DOM/1 articles of agreement (incorporating amendments 1 (1984), 2 and 3
(1987), 5, 6, 7 and 8 (1989) and 9 (1990)) contained clause 38, as follows:
“Settlement of disputes
Adjudication
.1 Clause 38A applies, where pursuant to Article 3, either Party refers any dispute
or difference arising under this sub-contract to adjudication.
.2 The adjudicator to decide the dispute or difference shall be either an individual
agreed by the Parties or, on the application of either party, an individual to be
nominated as the adjudicator by the person named in the appendix part 8 (the
Nominator) provided that:
a. no adjudicator shall be agreed or nominated under clause 38A.2.2 or clause
38A.3 who will not execute the Standard Agreement with the Parties and
b. where either Party has given notice of his intention to refer a dispute to
adjudication then
i. any agreement by the parties on the appointment of an adjudicator
must be reached with the object of securing the appointment and of
the referral of the dispute or difference to the adjudicator within seven
days of the date of the notice of intention to refer, (see clause 38A.4.1);
ii. any application to the nominator must be made with the object of
securing the appointment of, and the referral of the dispute or differ-
ence to, the adjudicator within seven days of the date of the notice
of intention to refer;
c. upon agreement by the parties on the appointment of the adjudicator or
upon receipt by the parties from the nominator of the name of the nominated
adjudicator the parties shall thereup on execute with the adjudicator the JCT
Adjudication Agreement.
.3 If the adjudicator dies or becomes ill or is unavailable for some other cause and
is thus unable to adjudicate on a dispute or difference referred to him, the parties
9
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANISATION
may either agree upon a person to replace the adjudicator or either party may
apply to the nominator for the nomination of an adjudicator to adjudicate that
dispute or difference; and the parties shall execute the JCT Adjudication Agree-
ment with the agreed or nominated Adjudicator.
.4 When pursuant to article 3 a party requires a dispute or difference to be referred
to adjudication then that party shall give notice to the other party of his intention
to refer the dispute or difference, briefly identified in the notice, to adjudication.
Within seven days from the date of such notice or the execution of the JCT
Adjudication Agreement by the Adjudicator if later the party giving the notice
of intention shall refer the dispute or difference to the adjudicator for his deci-
sion (the referral); and shall include with that referral particulars of the dispute
or difference together with a summary of the contentions on which he relies, a
statement of the relief or remedy which is sought and any material he wishes
the adjudicator to consider. The referral and its accompanying documentation
shall be copied simultaneously to the other party.
The referral by a party with its accompanying documentation to the adjudicator and
the copies thereof to be provided to the other party shall be given by actual delivery
or by FAX or by registered post or recorded delivery. If given by FAX then, for
record purposes, the referral and its accompanying documentation must forthwith
be sent by first class post or given be actual delivery. If sent by registered post or
recorded delivery the referral and its accompanying documentation shall, subject
to proof to the contrary, be deemed to have been received 48 hours after the date
of posting subject to the exclusion of Sundays and any Public Holidays.
.5 The adjudicator shall immediately upon receipt of the referral and its accompa-
nying documentation confirm that receipt to the parties.
The party not making the referral may, by the same means stated in clause
38A.4.2, send to the adjudicator within seven days of the date of the referral
with a copy to the other party, a written statement of the contentions on which
he relies and any material he wishes the adjudicator to consider.
The adjudicator shall within 28 days of his receipt of the referral and its accom-
panying documentation under clause 38A.4.1 and acting as an adjudicator for
the purpose of S.108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration
Act 1996 and not as an expert or an arbitrator reach his decision and forthwith
send that decision in writing to the parties. Provided that the party who has
made the referral may consent to allowing the adjudicator to extend the period
of 28 days by up to 14 days; and that by agreement between the parties after
the referral has been made a longer period than 28 days may be notified jointly
by the parties to the adjudicator within which to reach his decision.
The adjudicator shall not be obliged to give reasons for his decision.
In reaching his decision the adjudicator shall act impartially, set his own proce-
dures and at his absolute discretion may, take the initiative in ascertaining the
facts and the law as he considers necessary in respect of the referral which
may include the following:
a. Using his own knowledge and/or experience;
10
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANISATION
The parties shall be jointly and severally liable to the adjudicator for his fee and for
all expenses reasonably incurred by the adjudicator pursuant to the adjudication.
.7 The decision of the adjudicator shall be binding on the Parties until the dispute
or difference is finally determined by arbitration or by legal proceedings or by
an agreement in writing between the parties made after the decision of the
adjudicator has been given.
The parties shall, without prejudice to their other rights under the contract,
comply with the decisions of the adjudicator; and the contractor and the sub-
contractor shall ensure that the decisions of the adjudicator are given effect.
11
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANISATION
If either party does not comply with the decision of the adjudicator the other
party shall be entitled to take proceedings in the courts to secure such compli-
ance pending any final determination of the referred dispute or difference
pursuant to clause 38A.7.1.
.8 The adjudicator shall not be liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge
or purported discharge of his functions as adjudicator unless the act or omission
is in bad faith and the protection from liability shall similarly extend to any
employee or agent of the adjudicator.”
1.8 Having provided something of a template for the statutory and legislative drafts-
manship considered elsewhere in this book, the JCT has (in more recent editions of its
contracts) rowed back quite considerably from the comprehensive nature of its earlier
contractual adjudication provisions (as set out above) and the JCT Standard Building
Sub-Contract Conditions 2011 are, by comparison with the above, remarkably svelte,
reading as follows at clause 8.2 (in section 8, settlement of disputes):
“Adjudication
If a dispute or difference arises under the sub-contract which either party wishes to refer
to adjudication, the Scheme shall apply, subject to the following:
.1 for the purpose of the Scheme the adjudicator shall be the person (if any) and
the nominating body shall be that stated in the sub-contract particulars (item 15);
.2 where the dispute or difference is or includes a dispute or difference relating to
clause 3.11.3 and as to whether a direction issued thereunder is reasonable in
all the circumstances:
a. the adjudicator to decide such dispute or difference shall (where practicable)
be an individual with appropriate expertise and experience in the specialist
area or discipline relevant to the direction or issue in dispute;
b. if the adjudicator does not have the appropriate expertise and experience,
the adjudicator shall appoint an independent expert with such expertise and
experience as is reasonable in all the circumstances.”
1.9 In other words, the JCT has apparently decided to adopt what might be characterised
as the “default option”, namely the incorporation by reference of the statutory Scheme (as
amended). That option is described in greater detail in chapter 2 below, which provides a
helicopter view of current adjudication practice in England and Wales. Certain differences
exist north of the border and across the Irish Sea and so the local practice and procedure
(particularly with regard to enforcement) are dealt with separately for Northern Ireland
(in chapter 15) and Scotland2 (in chapter 16).
2 See also D Helps and N Kelly, “Adjudication and the differing approaches of the Courts in Scotland and
England” (2013) 79 Const LJ 314, in which it is suggested (at p 315) that:
“the Scottish Courts were much quicker to accept that the principles of natural justice apply in adjudication.
Similarly, it could be argued that, the most part, any differences of approach have not had a material impact in
practice. It is important, however, that those involved in construction disputes, particularly those involved in such
disputes on both sides of the border, recognise that there are differences of approach.”
12
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANISATION
1.10 By contrast, the NEC Contract (originally published in 1993) for the Institution
of Civil Engineers as The Engineering and Construction Contract,3 has always taken a
relatively “slimline” approach to its adjudication procedure, in section 9 thereof (under
the heading “disputes and termination”), as follows:
“Settlement of disputes
.1 Any dispute arising under or in connection with this contract is submitted to and
settled by the Adjudicator as follows.
Adjudication Table
Dispute about: Which Party may submit When may it be submitted to the
it to the Adjudicator Adjudicator?
An action of the Project The Contractor Between two and four weeks after
Manager of the Supervisor the Contractor’s notification of the
dispute to the Project Manager,
the notification itself being made
not more than four weeks after the
Contractor becomes aware of the
action.
The Project Manager or the The Contractor Between two and four weeks after
Supervisor not having taken the Contractor’s notification of the
an action dispute to the Project Manager,
the notification itself being made
not more than four weeks after the
Contractor becomes aware that the
action was not taken.
Any other matter Either Party Between two and four weeks after
notification of the dispute to the other
Party and the Project Manager.
.2 The Adjudicator settles the dispute by notifying the parties and the project Manager
of his decision together with his reasons with the time allowed by this contract.
Unless and until there is such a settlement, the Parties and the project manager
proceed as if the action, inaction or other matter disputed were not disputed. The
decision is final and binding unless and until revised by the tribunal.
That issue of Construction Act Review in Construction Law Journal concludes as follows:
“Some practitioners south of the boarder may have heard that another method of enforcement of decisions is
available in Scotland. That method does not rely on the Courts but it is not available in England and Wales. It is
enforcement by registration of the decision in the Books of Council and Session for execution. Such registration
can mean that, essentially, the decision can be enforced by way of summary diligence (attachment of assets to
satisfy a monetary award in and adjudicator’s decision). There are two problems. First, the parties need to agree
in appropriate terms in a written agreement that this method of enforcement will be available in their adjudication.
Secondly, there are certain technical requirements of the Registry associated with registration of documents in the
Books of Council and Session which mean that there are real practical difficulties associated with trying to take
advantage of registration of adjudicators’ decision there.”
3 P Gracia and D Gracia, “Dispute resolution under NEC contracts: the ‘Peter Pan’ conditions destined never
to grow up“ (2010) 76 Arbitration 1, at p 79.
13
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANISATION
The adjudication
.3 The party submitting the dispute to the adjudicator includes with his submission
information to be considered by the adjudicator. Any further information from a
party to be considered by the adjudicator is provided within four weeks from the
submission. The adjudicator notifies his decision within four weeks of the end period
for providing information. The four-week periods in this clause may extend if required
by the Adjudicator in view of the nature of the dispute and agreed by the parties.
.4 If a matter disputed under or in connection with a subcontract is also a matter disputed
under or in connection with this contract, the Contractor may submit the subcontract
dispute to the adjudicator at the same time as the main contract submission. The
Adjudicator then settles the two disputes together and references to the Parties for
the purposes of the dispute are interpreted as including the sub-contractor.
The Adjudicator
.5 The adjudicator settles the dispute as independent adjudicator and not as arbitra-
tor. His decision is enforceable as a matter of contractual obligation between the
Parties and not as an arbitral award. The Adjudicator’s powers include the power
to review and revise any action or inaction of the project manager or supervisor
related to the dispute. Any communication between a party and the adjudicator
is communicated also to the other party. If the adjudicator’s decision includes
assessment of additional cost or delay caused to the Contractor, he makes his
assessment in the same way as a compensation event is assessed.
.6 If the adjudicator resigns or is unable to act, the parties choose a new adjudicator
jointly. If the parties have not chosen a new adjudicator jointly within four weeks
of the adjudicator resigning or becoming unable to act, a party may ask the
person stated in the contract data to choose an adjudicator and the parties accept
his choice. The new adjudicator is appointed as adjudicator and the parties accept his
choice. The new adjudicator is appointed as adjudicator under the NEC adjudica-
tor’s contract. He has power to settle disputes that were currently submitted to
his predecessor but had not been settled at the time when his predecessor resigned
or became unable to act. The date of his appointment is the date of submission
of these disputes to him as adjudicator.
14
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANISATION
whichever is the earlier. The tribunal proceedings are not started before completion
of the whole of the works or earlier termination.
.8 The tribunal settles the dispute referred to it. Its powers include the power to review
and revise any decision of the adjudicator and any action or inaction of the project
manager or the supervisor related to the dispute. A party is not limited in the tribunal
proceedings to the information, evidence or arguments put to the adjudicator.”
4 See N Dennys, M Raeside and R Clay, Hudson’s Building and Engineering Contracts, twelfth edition (Sweet
and Maxwell, Thomson Reuters 2010) (Hudson), at paras 11–014 to 11–017 inclusive and 11–053 to 11–063
inclusive and the corresponding passages of the Second Supplement thereto.
5 See also T Kennedy – Grant QC, “A Review of the Cases on the New Zealand Construction Contracts Act
2002” (2013) 79 Const LJ 271, the introduction to which reads as follows:
“1. It is impossible to tell how many times provisions of the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (CCA)
have been invoked since the Act came into force on 1 April 2003. The text of the Act and of the
Construction Contracts Regulations 2003 can be accessed on the New Zealand Government legisla-
tion website at www.legislation.govt.nz [Accessed 14 August 2013]. It is also impossible to tell what
proportion of the cases in which the Act has been invoked has resulted in judicial decisions. A search
of the Ministry of Justice’s website carried out up to July 23, 2012 at http://jdo.justice.govt.nz/jdo/
Search.jsp [Accessed 4 September 2013] provides links to 188 superior court decisions referring to
the Act, including one Supreme Court decision and 12 Court of Appeal decisions; but these are not
easily accessible.
2. I examine these decisions under the following heads:
a. Definitions – paragraphs 4–8;
b. The right to progress payments and the procedure for claiming and making them – paragraphs
9–57;
c. The consequences of a payer’s failure to comply with the provisions regarding payment schedules
and the making of progress payments – paragraphs 58–59;
d. Adjudication – paragraphs 60–99;
e. Recovery of unpaid claims and enforcement of adjudicator’s determinations – paragraphs
100–128;
15
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANISATION
16