International Construction Law Review
STATUTORY ADJUDICATION – WORLDWIDE DOMINATION, OR A PASSING TREND? LESSONS FROM EARLY ADOPTERS AND ROADMAP FOR NEW PLAYERS
FRÉDÉRIC GILLION
Partner, Pinsent Masons MPillay LLP
CHRISTOPHER SEAMAN
Associate, Pinsent Masons MPillay LLP
JOHANNE BROCAS1
Practice Development Lawyer, Pinsent Masons MPillay LLP
Security of payment (SOP) regimes have never been more important, nor as popular as they are in 2024. There are currently over 20 jurisdictions that have implemented a SOP/statutory adjudication regime,2 and another (Hong Kong SAR) is in the final stages of implementing its own.
Although the specifics of each SOP regime may vary across jurisdictions, the common purpose tying each regime together is the same – “to redress a consistent failure to ensure that participants in the building and construction industry are paid in full and on time for the work they have done even though they have a contractual right to be paid”3 – thereby, improving cash flow, reducing disputes and increasing efficiencies in the construction industry.
In jurisdictions where statutory adjudication has been established for some time, it has proven central to resolving disputes related to construction projects, and more particularly payment disputes. So much so that it was described by Lord Justice Coulson as “the only game in town” for construction disputes in the UK.4 Thailand, on the other hand had previously considered the introduction of statutory adjudication but eventually backtracked in
1 The views expressed herein are entirely those of the authors and not necessarily those of the firm or organisation with which they are affiliated.
2 Including England, Scotland and Wales (1996), Northern Ireland (1997), Australia (New South Wales being the first of the Australian states to have introduced a SOP regime in 1999 and Western Australia the last one in 2021), New Zealand (2002), Singapore (2004), Isle of Man (2004), Malaysia (2012), Ireland (2013), Canada (in 2019 at federal level with legislation introduced for each of the Canadian provinces between 2019 and 2023).
3 Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, Final Report of the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry (2003), p 229.
4 John Doyle Construction Ltd (In Liquidation) v Erith Contractors Ltd [2020] EWHC 2451 (TCC); [2020] BLR 671; 192 Con LR 210.
384