Keep it simple, stupid
Redmond, J.
Keep it simple, stupid - 2003 - Building 268(8313) 19 December 2003, 20(1) .
Argues for adjudication rules to be made simpler in the light of "Pegram v Tally Wiejl (UK) Ltd" ([2003] EWCA Civ 1750, [2004] 1 WLR 2082-2097(16). P and T had disagreed over which adjudication rules should apply to settle a final account dispute. P favoured the Scheme for Construction Contracts whilst T maintained that the Construction Industry model arbitration rules should apply. The adjudicator applied the Scheme rules and made an award in favour of P which was upheld by the TCC ([2003] EWHC 984 (TCC), [2003] 3 All ER 98). T appealed. CA overturned the decision on the grounds that, as there was no contract in writing, it was possible that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction. Noted that lawyers who support the efforts of the courts to stop artificial arguments about the enforceability of adjudicators' decisions will reluctantly accept that this decision is correct. Argues for a less restrictive version of adjudication where the right to adjudication should apply in any situation where a contractor is entitled to payment for work done.
PEGRAM V TALLY WIEJL (UK) LTD
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
ADJUDICATION RULES
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS-STANDARD FORMS OF BUILDING CONTRACT-JOINT CONTRACTS TRIBNUAL CONTRACTS
PAYMENT CLAUSES
WRITTEN AGREEMENTS
Keep it simple, stupid - 2003 - Building 268(8313) 19 December 2003, 20(1) .
Argues for adjudication rules to be made simpler in the light of "Pegram v Tally Wiejl (UK) Ltd" ([2003] EWCA Civ 1750, [2004] 1 WLR 2082-2097(16). P and T had disagreed over which adjudication rules should apply to settle a final account dispute. P favoured the Scheme for Construction Contracts whilst T maintained that the Construction Industry model arbitration rules should apply. The adjudicator applied the Scheme rules and made an award in favour of P which was upheld by the TCC ([2003] EWHC 984 (TCC), [2003] 3 All ER 98). T appealed. CA overturned the decision on the grounds that, as there was no contract in writing, it was possible that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction. Noted that lawyers who support the efforts of the courts to stop artificial arguments about the enforceability of adjudicators' decisions will reluctantly accept that this decision is correct. Argues for a less restrictive version of adjudication where the right to adjudication should apply in any situation where a contractor is entitled to payment for work done.
PEGRAM V TALLY WIEJL (UK) LTD
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
ADJUDICATION RULES
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS-STANDARD FORMS OF BUILDING CONTRACT-JOINT CONTRACTS TRIBNUAL CONTRACTS
PAYMENT CLAUSES
WRITTEN AGREEMENTS