Australia Each
state and territory has enacted
security of payment legislation which provide for adjudication of progress construction claims, starting with
New South Wales in 1999. There is very little harmony between the legislation in each jurisdiction regarding the scope of contract covered and the adjudication procedure. However, in all jurisdictions, adjudications are interim pending final resolution of the dispute under the relevant terms of the contract.
New South Wales The
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 came into effect in
New South Wales on 26 March 2000 and applies to all construction contracts commenced on or after that date. It is not possible to contract out of the legislation. Amendments to the Act made in 2013 are not retrospective, however, earlier amendments are. The Act does not apply to
mining work, however, construction work ancillary to the operation of a mine is covered. The Act also does not apply to work undertaken for a resident owner within the meaning of the
Home Building Act 1989. In NSW, the 2016 case of
Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd The case went against
Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport (2004), which had held that judicial intervention was limited to cases of a breach of essential and basic requirements.
Queensland The
Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (BCIPA) came into effect in
Queensland in October, 2004. Through a statutory-based adjudication process a claimant can seek to resolve payment on account disputes. The act covers construction, and related supply of goods and services, contracts, whether written or verbal. BCIPA is regulated by the
Building and Construction Industry Payments Agency, a branch of the
Queensland Building Services.
Victoria Adjudication is a relatively new process introduced by the government of
Victoria, Australia, to allow for the rapid determination of progress claims under building contracts or sub-contracts and contracts for the supply of goods or services in the building industry. This process was designed to ensure cash flow to businesses in the building industry, without parties getting tied up in lengthy and expensive litigation or arbitration. It is regulated by the
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002. Builders, sub-contractors and suppliers need to carefully choose a nominating authority to which they make an adjudication application.
Nigeria Adjudication is used in relation to construction disputes in Nigeria, although there is no statutory framework for adjudication under
Nigerian law. Lawyers at Stren & Blan Partners note that "recent trends indicate a shift towards adjudication, exemplified by notable settlements in major construction disputes".
United Kingdom The relevant
legislation in regard to construction in the United Kingdom is the
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (1996 Chapter 53), later amended by Part 8 of the
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Any party to a construction contract has the right to refer a dispute arising under the contract to a third party for adjudication, whose decision shall be binding unless the courts or an
arbitrator have already made a determination on the referred issue. The Act does not define "adjudication" or an "adjudicator", but an adjudicator's obligation is to act "
impartially" (section 108(2)(e)). The parties can agree between themselves who will undertake the adjudication, but where they cannot agree, either party may ask an
Adjudicator Nominating Body (ANB) to appoint one. The "
Scheme for Construction Contracts", set up under the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998, contains a set of adjudication provisions which are to apply to a construction contract unless the contract itself includes arrangements for adjudication which comply in full with statutory requirements. In
Scotland, the Scheme for Construction Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 1998 apply. For there to be a dispute capable of being addressed by adjudication, "it must be clear that a point has emerged from the process of discussion or negotiation that has ended and that there is something which needs to be decided". Section 108(3) of the 1996 Act and paragraph 23(2) of the Scheme for Construction Contracts state that "the decision of the adjudicator shall be binding on the parties, and they shall comply with it until the dispute is finally determined by legal proceedings, by arbitration ... or by agreement between the parties". The term "smash and grab" claim refers to the practice of submitting a large interim payment application at the end of the construction phase of a project, but before completion of the final account, and the term "'smash and grab' adjudication" has been used in relation to several adjudication decisions regarding liability for interim payment of such claims.
Selected cases In a 2010 case involving two consecutive adjudications in relation to a construction contract for homeowner Charles Wishart, the High Court allowed the second adjudicator's ruling on an issue which the first adjudicator had commented on and purported to have resolved, but which was not part of, and "wholly unnecessary" to resolve as far as the initial adjudication was concerned. In other circumstances, an adjudicator's ruling is binding and a point which has been resolved cannot be raised again, but where the adjudicator went outside the scope of the adjudication referred to them, their comments were not a binding part of the ruling. In relation to a 2012 case,
Herbosh-Kiere Marine Contractors Ltd v Dover Harbour Board, Matt Molloy notes that there can be a distinction between "statutory adjudication", applying the processes set out in legislation, and "contractual adjudication", where a complainant exercises a right provided for in their contract. In this case, which related to a
wreck-removal agreement requiring the contractor to remove the remains of a boat sunk to stop torpedoes being fired into
Dover Harbour during
World War I, the court determined that the adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction and the adjudicator's ruling was therefore not upheld. ==Healthcare==