This case highlights the importance of adjudicators giving parties the chance to be heard. But in other cases they are right to disregard submissions
There were over 1,000 adjudications last year. Out of these, 10 decisions – less than 1% – were not enforced by the court. You could count on two fingers how many of these were not enforced because a party did not have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Last month saw the first such reported case of this year.
These statistics reflect well on the general success of adjudication, its users, party representatives, adjudicators and the courts. Although adjudicators, like all people, make mistakes, the courts enforce their decisions even if they contain errors of fact, law or procedure. This recognises the rough and ready nature of adjudication and the theoretical prospect for the losing party to have the dispute reheard in arbitration or litigation.
However, the Construction Act requires adjudicators to act impartially, which means that they have to give each party a fair hearing. There is a critical, but blurred, line between when an adjudicator considers and rejects a party’s case (which is valid) and when he decides one point against a party that renders the rest of its case inadmissible or irrelevant. As CJP Builders vs William Verry showed, the latter may be fatal to the resulting decision.
The facts were these. CJP claimed by adjudication a Β£100k interim payment it said Verry owed it. The subcontract (like the still much used JCT 98 forms) required Verry, as the responding party,