In a notable case involving a construction subcontractor and a main contractor, our legal team with its specialised expertise in construction dispute resolution matters represented a subcontractor in a series of adjudications arising from the same contract. The dispute revolved around work quality, unpaid invoices, and procedural discrepancies concerning pay less notices. This case study examines the intricacies of the dispute, our strategic approach, and the resulting outcomes, offering valuable insights into construction law and dispute resolution practices.
One of the key pieces of legislation in the UK is the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (also known as the Construction Act). This Act mandates the right to adjudication in construction contracts, allowing any party involved in a construction dispute to refer the dispute to an adjudicator, who then makes a decision that is binding on an interim basis. The decision of the adjudicator must be complied with immediately, ensuring that work can continue, and cash flow is maintained. Parties can later seek a final resolution through litigation if they wish, but the adjudicator’s decision remains enforceable until overturned by such proceedings.
The Construction Act outlines specific requirements for construction contracts, including provisions for adjudication and payment terms, such as the issuing of payment notices and pay less notices. A pay less notice is issued by a party seeking to withhold payment, detailing the amount that is to be withheld and the grounds for doing so. This is part of the statutory mechanism to ensure transparency and fairness in construction payments.
At the heart of this dispute was a construction contract, a legally binding agreement between our client (the subcontractor) and the main contractor. This contract outlined the scope of work, payment terms, and procedures for resolving disputes, including the provision for adjudication.
Adjudication is favoured in the construction industry due to its efficiency and effectiveness in resolving disputes without derailing the progress of construction projects. It provides a mechanism for resolving disputes in a manner that is quicker and less expensive than traditional litigation, with the added benefit of having a decision made by an expert in construction law and industry practices.
Construction contracts are foundational documents in the construction industry, establishing the terms and conditions of the work to be performed. The inclusion of adjudication as a dispute resolution mechanism under construction legislation provides a vital tool for swiftly addressing disputes, maintaining project timelines, and ensuring financial stability for all parties involved.
The subcontractor faced challenges with the main contractor over misguided allegations pertaining to quality of works resulting in unpaid invoices. The total value of the series of adjudications, including counterclaims brought by the main contract stood at circa £5 million. Complications also arose from the procedural aspects of issuing pay less notices, a critical element in construction contracts for communicating the intention to withhold payment.
Our strategic decision to pursue adjudication instead of litigation was driven by considerations of speed, cost, and the interim nature of adjudication. This approach aligns with the principle of adjudication under construction legislation, designed to ensure swift dispute resolution and immediate compliance with the adjudicator’s decision.
The adjudication process saw us teaming up with surveyors who provided expert evidence crucial in supporting our client’s position. The outcome was overwhelmingly positive for our client, securing over ninety percent of the claimed amount and full dismissal of the counterclaims, alongside recovery of adjudication costs. When the main contractor refused to comply with one of the awards, we immediately applied to the court for enforcement and secured payment post-haste.
This case highlights the efficacy of adjudication in construction disputes, emphasising the need for strategic legal planning and the value of expert evidence. Adjudication stands out as a cost-effective, expedient alternative to traditional litigation, particularly suited to the dynamic nature of construction projects.
The successful resolution of this dispute through adjudication not only resulted in substantial financial recovery for our client but also reinforced the strategic importance of legal expertise in construction law and dispute resolution. The case exemplifies the benefits of understanding legislative provisions and the strategic use of dispute resolution mechanisms to achieve favourable outcomes in construction disputes.
Through this case, IMD Corporate experience and strategic approach are showcased, underscoring our dedication to providing tailored legal solutions to our clients’ unique challenges and the pivotal role of legal acumen in navigating the complexities of construction law and dispute resolution mechanisms.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published.
Call us now to discuss your case 0330 107 0106 or email us at business@imd.co.uk.
Talk to us today 
0330 107 0106
CONTACT US TODAY