Challenging Adjudicators' Decisions On Natural Justice Grounds
The fact that an adjudicator makes an error in reaching his
decision does not usually render the decision unenforceable.
Orthodox thinking is that if an adjudicator gets it wrong, the
result can be changed in "final" proceedings. On the
other hand, the Construction Act requires adjudicators to act
"impartially", which means that they have to give
each party a fair hearing. But what happens if an adjudicator
makes an error which has the effect of denying
a party a fair hearing? The issue arose in the case of CJP
Builders, decided last Friday, where:
The referring party (a subcontractor) sought to adjudicate
an interim payment claim in the order of £100K.
The subcontract terms (in the DOM/2 form) required the
responding party to make any written submissions within 7
days of the date of the referral. However, the responding
party said that it needed more than 7 days to respond - it
wanted 17 days.
After some haggling over whether the responding party
should have an extension of time, the referring party said it
would agree to the responding party having until noon on date
X to respond.
The responding party served its responsive submissions at
around 5:30pm on date X, i.e. after the noon deadline.
The adjudicator disregarded the responding party's
submissions because they were served late. The adjudicator
said that if he had any discretion under the subcontract to
do so, he would have taken those submissions
into account. But he believed that the subcontract did not
give him the power to take into account submissions that were
served late.
The adjudicator therefore found, in the absence of any
"admissible" material from the responding party,
that the subcontractor was entitled to the £100K or so
that it claimed.
The TCC refused to enforce the
adjudicator's decision. The court said that the adjudicator
was wrong not to consider the responding party's
submissions, and that the subcontract did give
him the power to do so. By not considering those submissions,
the adjudicator had not given the responding party a fair
hearing, i.e. the rules of natural justice had been
infringed.
There could, however, be another way of looking at this
factual scenario. The adjudicator made an error of law in his
interpretation of the subcontract. The fact that an error of
law was made did not mean that the adjudicator's decision
was unenforceable, even if the effect of that error was to deny
one of the parties a fair hearing. This is the approach that
the Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial