03
March UK: In Paice and another vMJ Harding (t/aMJ Harding Contractors) [2015] EWHC 661 (TCC) , therewas a rare refusal by the TCC to enforce an adjudicator’s decision due to the possibility of bias . The claimant, Paice, had already lost two adjudications involving the same adjudicator (the first adjudicator), when they phonedhis office to discuss the adjudication. After their final account was rejected, MJH initiated a third adjudication, decided by a different adjudicatorwhich Paice also lost. Paice started a fourth adjudication; the first adjudicatorwas appointed again, and MJH’s representative queriedwhether there had been contact with Paice in the intervening period. The adjudicator denied this, andMJH requested telephone records fromthe first adjudicator and Paice. The request was ignored. MJHsought an injunction to prevent the adjudicationproceeding but it was not granted. The adjudication concludedwith a decision thatMJHshould repay to Paice the vast majority of its final account payment. Evidence of telephone contact between Paice and the first adjudicator emerged following the decision, and its enforcement was challenged on the grounds of bias. The judge found that the failure by the adjudicator to disclose the conversations, togetherwith’ ill-judged’ criticisms ofMJH’s case and a statementmade expressly in support of Paice’s application for summary judgment, gave rise to a real possibility of bias and accordingly the applicationwas refused. Coulson J, however, expressed sympathy for Paice, who he deemedhad been ill-served by the adjudicationprocess and the adjudicator’s ‘misjudgements’. UK: Thegovernment publisheda Strategic Plan for Level 3 Building Information Modelling (BIM) , otherwiseknownas “Digital Built Britain”. Theplan follows upon the2011Government ConstructionStrategy,whichmandated theuseof Level 2BIMonall public sector projects by2016, thus significantly contributing to savings of GBP804million inconstructioncosts in2013/14. Australia: In LamioMasonry Services Pty Ltd v TP Projects Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 127 theNSWSupreme Court provided further guidance in the often-grey area of the level of information required for a valid payment claim made under the Building andConstruction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW). In this case the respondent sought to have an adjudicationdeterminationquashed on the basis that it had beendeniednatural justice because the contractor had only provided evidence of its labour hours through the provision of site diaries in its adjudication application andnot in its payment claim. The respondent argued that because the site diarieswere only provided in its adjudication application, the respondent was not able to raise, in its payment schedule, the argument that the labour hours were not the applicable rates for the relevant personnel. The court dismissed the argument and said that the claimsmet the requirements of a payment claim. They identified the job. They gave a brief description of thework done, howmany mendid thework, how long it took to do thework and the amount charged.
8
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker