Adjudicator not an arbitrator or a judge

Carillion Construction Ltd v Davenport Royal Dockyard Ltd CA TLR 24 November

The purpose of an adjudication in a construction dispute under s108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 is to find an interim solution and speedy resolution of the dispute. It was not enacted to provide definitive answers to complex questions. It was too easy in a complex case for a party who was dissatisfied with the adjudicator’s decision to comb through his reasons and identify points to challenge under the labels ‘excessive jurisdiction’ or ‘breach of natural justice’. It has to be kept in mind that the majority of adjudicators were not chosen for their expertise as lawyers. Their skills were likely to lie in other disciplines. The task of an adjudicator was not to act as arbitrator or judge. The time constraints under which he was expected to operate were proof of that. The adjudicator’s task was to find an interim solution which met the needs of the case. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the proper course for the unsuccessful party in an adjudication under the scheme was to pay the amount that he had been ordered to pay by the adjudicator. If he did not accept that the decision was correct he could take legal or arbitration proceedings to establish the true position.