UK Adjudicators Newsletter November 2021

WWW.UKADJUDICATORS.CO.UK
NOVEMBER 2021 NEWSLETTER
1 | P a g e
EDITORS COMMENTS
The popularity of adjduciation to resolve
payment disputes in the construction industry
grows. The Bahamas are currently drafting a
bill to implement statutory adjudication and
the Hong Kong government have rolled out
Security of Payment Legislation for Public
Works Contacts as a first step before they
introduce legislation to make it mandatory for
both public sector and private sector contracts.
Hong Kong though will have its own problems
when it is introduced as the market is very
small and potential adjduciators are likely to be
conflicted, whether this presents an
opportunity for outside adjudicators remains
to be seen.
I’m sure many of our readers will be attending
the Adjudication Society conference in
November 2021 and I look forward to meeting
you there.
2022 will mark the fifth year since UK
Adjudiiators began making nominations of
adjudicators in the United Kingdom, if you
have any suggestions as to an event or events
to mark this anniversary or would like to host
an event please do get in touch.
We have a few seats left for the UK
Adjudicators table at the SCL London Annual
lunch, if you would like to attaned please let us
know as sooon as possible as the event is a sell
out once again.
The SCL Conference International Conference
is still accepting registrations and there are
notable speakers drawn from across the world
As always please do forward articles, events
and worthy news for inclusion in forthcoming
newsletters.
Sean Gibbs LLB(Hons) LLM MICE FCIOB FRICS
FCIARB, is the Chief Executive Officer of
Hanscomb Intercontinental and is available to
sit as an arbitrator, adjudicator, mediator,
quantum expert and dispute board member.
sean.gibbs@hanscombintercontinental.co.uk

2 | P a g e
QUADRO SERVICES LTD V CREAGH
CONCRETE PRODUCTS LTD [2021]
EWHC 2637 (TCC)
Quadro sought summary enforcement of an
adjudication decision against Creagh, who said
that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction
because three disputes were referred to them.
An adjudicator will not have jurisdiction to
adjudicate more than one dispute in a single
adjudication.
Here, during the course of the project, Quadro
made applications for payment and raised
invoices for the amounts claimed. Three
invoices were outstanding, two were approved
by Creagh’s QS, one was apparently not replied
to at all. The payment applications were
cumulative, with each payment application
being for the full value of the work done, less
the previous payment applications. No pay less
notices were issued in respect of any of the
applications. The total value outstanding was
£40,026.
Quadro was owed monies by Creagh on four
other contracts and an issue was said to have
arisen over works at one of these sites. In the
adjudication, Creagh said that the adjudicator
did not have jurisdiction because Quadro had
referred three separate disputes under one
notice and referral, i.e., the three applications
for payment. Quadro said that the dispute was
the failure to pay a debt in the sum of £40k
under one contract for works that they had
carried out for Creagh. Any issue as to the
consideration of the sums agreed and
rendering of the invoices were sub-issues to be
considered in resolving that one dispute –
namely, the debt. Creagh took no further part
in the adjudication. The adjudicator considered
that “a single dispute had been referred,
namely a dispute over an amount owed”.
Before HHJ Watson, Creagh said that the
claims here could be decided without
reference to each other. The questions of
whether there was a valid payment
application, the due date, the final date of
payment, whether a pay less notice was
served, and whether the final date for payment
had passed, had to be considered separately
for each claim.
The Judge considered that one dispute could
include numerous sub-issues which might be
capable of being determined independently
from each other. Whether they were sub-
issues or separate disputes was a question of
fact.
Here, the dispute that was referred was the
failure to pay £40k. Whilst Creagh were correct

3 | P a g e
to say that the adjudication involved the
consideration of the payment process of three
separate payment applications, each of which
could be decided in isolation from the other,
this was not the case here, because Creagh had
not taken any issue with the payment process
before the adjudication. It had not raised any
issue as to the validity of the payment
applications or suggested that it had issued any
pay less notices. It had simply not paid and had
raised a claim on another project.
The result was that, in the absence of any
substantive dispute as to liability to pay the
invoices, the adjudicator considered the
validity of the payment notices and concluded
they were valid applications for payment. That
it was “technically” possible to determine
whether each individual invoice was due
without determining whether the other
invoices were due did not mean that those
issues could not be sub-issues in the wider
dispute as to whether Quadro was entitled to
the sum it claims it was due under the contract.
The Judge further noted that, if Creagh’s
argument was correct, then:
“the result would be that the parties would be
put to the very significant cost and
inconvenience of numerous separate
adjudications to recover a single claimed
balance under a single contract. That would be
contrary to the policy underlying the
adjudication process of efficient, swift and
cost-effective resolution of disputes on an
interim basis.”
CC CONSTRUCTION LTD V
MINCIONE [2021] EWHC 2502 (TCC)
Mr Mincione engaged CCCL to design and build
the shell and core of a new house. The contract
was based on the JCT Design and Build
Contract (2011 Edn). Mr Mincione refused to
pay £485k which the CCCL said was due
following the service of a Final Statement and
an adjudication decision. Mr Mincione said
that the Final Statement was not conclusive, a
balance was owing to him, and the decision
was not enforceable. One of the issues before
the court was whether there had been a
material breach of natural justice in the
adjudicator’s treatment of Mr Mincione’s
liquidated damages argument? The
adjudicator had dealt “very briefly” with that
saying:
“It is established law that an Adjudicator
cannot open up a certificate considered to be
conclusive, as such, once the due date has
been determined, the Adjudicator will have no
further power to open up the Final Statement.
In respect of liquidated damages, I conclude
that it is not a part of the dispute I have been
asked to decide and therefore cannot be raised
in set-off in these circumstances.”
The Judge applied the principles set out by Mrs
Justice O’Farrell in the case of Global Switch

4 | P a g e
Estates Ltd v Sudlows Ltd (Dispatch Issue 247).
Not every failure to consider relevant points
will amount to a breach of natural justice. The
breach must be material and a finding of
breach will only be made in plain and obvious
cases. If there is a material breach of the rules
of natural justice, the decision will not be
enforced. HHJ Eyre QC said that, where there
is a claim for payment, a defence of set-off can
be raised and will necessarily be part of the
dispute which an adjudicator addressing such
a claim has to determine. That said, it was
important to keep in mind the distinction
between (a) considering an asserted defence
and then concluding, as a result of that
consideration, that it was not a tenable
defence in the particular circumstances; and
(b) declining to consider an asserted defence.
It is the latter which is likely to be a breach.
CCCL said that the adjudicator did consider the
liquidated damages defence concluding that
Mr Mincione was not entitled to raise a claim
for LADs in set-off against sums found due in
respect of the Contract Sum. When the
adjudicator said that the absence of a Pay Less
Notice meant that “the sum to be paid … is the
sum stated as due in the Final Statement …”
they were accepting the argument that the
absence of a Pay Less Notice precluded the
setting off of the liquidated damages. That was
an adequate consideration of the set-off
defence and so the adjudicator had addressed
the defence.
Here, it was clear that the adjudicator said that
he had declined to consider the liquidated
damages claim as a potential set-off. This was
because he did not regard it as part of the
scope of the dispute before him. That view was
incorrect and meant that the adjudicator had
failed to address a defence which was before
him. The Judge noted that, in considering
whether that defence should have been
addressed, and the consequences of any
failure to do so, it was important that CCCL had
sought (and, indeed, it obtained) a decision
that a particular sum was to be paid. It
followed that this was a case where the
Employer was “entitled to rely on all available
defences”.
A conclusion that the absence of a Pay Less
Notice prevented Mr Mincione advancing the
liquidated damages claim as a set-off may or
may not have been correct and would have
been a decision within the adjudicator’s
jurisdiction, but that was not the conclusion
reached by the adjudicator. Instead, they
declined to consider the set-off defence in its
entirety. This amounted to a material breach of
the rules of natural justice.
Jeremy Glover, Partner
jglover@fenwickelliott.com

5 | P a g e
SEABAY’S BACK: LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES EXCLUDED UNDER
VICTORIAN SOP ACT
The recent Victorian Supreme Court decision
of Goldwind Australia Pty Ltd v Ale Heavylift
(Australia) Pty Ltd (Goldwind) has provided
much-needed clarity on whether liquidated
damages (LDs) deducted by a principal for late
completion of a project are an ‘excluded
amount’ under the Building and Construction
Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic)
(Act).
Under section 10B of the Act, there are certain
types of claims called ‘excluded amounts’,
which may not be taken into account when
calculating the progress payment to which a
person is entitled. These include amounts
relating to:
a claim for compensation due to the happening
of an event, including time-related costs; and
damages for breach of contract.
The ‘excluded amounts’ regime is peculiar to
the Victorian legislation.
Cases prior to Goldwind
In the 2011 case of Seabay Properties Pty Ltd v
Galvin Constructions (Seabay), the Supreme
Court found that:
the concept of ‘excluded amounts’ extends to
amounts claimed by a respondent in a
payment schedule; and
claims for LDs are ‘excluded amounts’, such
that an adjudicator cannot have regard to a
respondent’s offsetting claim for LDs when
valuing a payment claim.
Seabay was a controversial decision and often
led to the perverse outcome of contractors:
running late on a project due to delays of their
own making;
being liable for liquidated damages for late
completion; and
seeking to avoid their liquidated damages
liability by recovering 100% of the Contract
Sum through a claim under the Act, on the
basis that LDs must be ignored by the
Adjudicator.
However, two cases in 2018 and 2020
appeared to limit the application of Seabay.
First, in Shape Australia Pty Ltd v The Nuance
Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (Shape)[3], Justice
Digby found that a contractor’s claim for the
recovery of LDs levied in a previous payment

6 | P a g e
cycle was also an ‘excluded amount’. You can
read our eAlert on Shape in full here.
Second, in VCON v Oliver Hume & Anor, Justice
Stynes endorsed Justice Digby’s observations
in Shape. VCON related to a claim by the
contractor for the return of bank guarantee
proceeds cashed on account of the
contractor’s alleged liability for LDs under the
relevant construction contract. Justice Stynes
held that:
"any attempt by a party to recoup liquidated
damages levied in a previous accounting
period is a claim for an excluded amount that
must not be taken into account in calculating
the amount of a progress payment. This
principle derives from the decision of Digby J in
Shape.”
Until Goldwind, the position therefore seemed
to be that both the levying of LDs by a
respondent in a payment schedule, and a
subsequent claim by the contractor to recoup
LDs already levied, are ‘excluded amounts’.
Facts
In early 2020, Goldwind engaged Ale Heavylift
(Ale) under a subcontract to use two
specialised cranes to erect wind turbines in
connection with the Stockyard Hill Wind Farm
project near Ballarat, Victoria.
The subcontract provided that Goldwind
would pay Ale on a monthly basis according to
Ale’s rate of progress, which was subject to a
productivity adjustment formula.
In May 2020, Goldwind increased Ale’s scope
by adding more turbines for installation in the
northern part of the site. The two cranes were
at that stage situated in the southern part of
the site – around 40km away. One of the
cranes took 18 days to move from the south to
the north, and the other took 40 days.
There followed a number of payment cycles
(under the Act) under which Ale made claims
for work performed and Goldwind applied a
‘delay deduction’, on the basis that the 40-day
relocation for one of the cranes was excessive,
and an allowance of 25 days was more
‘reasonable’.
Ale then issued Payment Claim 13, ignoring the
‘delay deduction’ and claiming $552,450.92 for
work done which had not been paid for by
Goldwind. Goldwind again applied the ‘delay
deduction’ in the payment schedule and Ale
referred its claim to adjudication.
The Adjudicator determined that Seabay
applied, that Goldwind’s ‘delay deduction’ was
an excluded amount, and that Ale was entitled
to the amount claimed in Payment Claim 13.

7 | P a g e
Goldwind applied to the Supreme Court for
judicial review, relying on the principles in
Shape.
The Court’s findings
The key question for the Court was whether
Ale’s claim was for work done under the
subcontract, or was a claim to recoup the
‘delay deduction’. Ale submitted that it was the
former, whereas Goldwind said that it was the
latter – and the claim was therefore an
‘excluded amount’ in line with Shape.
Justice Stynes determined that, properly
understood, Ale’s claim was a claim for work
done and the Adjudicator’s determination was
valid. She rejected the submission that if a
claimant fails to immediately adjudicate a
deduction in a payment schedule, this
somehow changes the nature of the claim to
being a claim to ‘recoup’ previously
unchallenged deductions. Such an
interpretation was not supported by any
provision of the Act, and was contrary to its
primary purpose of ensuring that parties who
carry out construction work are entitled to
recover progress payments.
In making these findings, Justice Stynes said
that Justice Digby’s observations in Shape did
not constitute binding precedent and she was
not bound to follow them. No mention was
made of VCON in the judgment, and it is
unclear whether it was raised by the parties in
submissions.
In passing, Justice Stynes also indicated that it
might have been open to Ale to argue that the
‘delay deduction’ was unable to be taken into
account by the Adjudicator because this type
of deduction was not to ‘be accounted for in
the valuation of construction work.’
Implications
This is a significant decision, and a positive one
for claimants. It marks a return by the Court to
the principles established in Seabay.
After Shape and VCON, the general consensus
in the industry was that unless an LDs
deduction was immediately taken to
adjudication, a subsequent claim for the return
of those monies could be characterised as an
attempt to ‘claw back’ or ‘recoup’ LDs – and be
classified as an excluded amount.
While VCON was not dealt with in the
judgment, Goldwind appears to remove the
risk to claimants in not immediately referring a
disputed LDs deduction to adjudication, and
having its claims characterised as a ‘claw back’
or ‘recouping’ of LDs previously levied. VCON is
likely distinguishable as a case regarding bank
guarantee proceeds, whereas Goldwind dealt
with a claim for payment for work performed.
Principals should therefore be aware that an
LDs set off in a payment schedule is unlikely to

8 | P a g e
be successful where it is challenged by a
claimant under the Act – even if the challenge
is not made immediately – and should consider
whether other contractual protections might
be implemented for late completion by the
contractor (for example, additional
performance security).
Finally, while Justice Stynes’ comments
regarding the ‘valuation of construction work’
were not developed in any detail, Her Honour
seems to be indicating that a respondent’s
ability to apply deductions in a payment
schedule is, in fact, quite limited. If the
deduction does not relate squarely to valuing
of construction work, it cannot be considered
by an Adjudicator. This might mean that
deductions for items such as backcharges in
reliance on the contractual set off regime are
not permissible.
Ben McLeod
Special Counsel
Melbourne
ben.mcleod@maddocks.com.au
CONSTRUCTION LAW UPDATE:
COURT ELABORATES PRINCIPLES
THAT APPLY IN IRELAND TO
ENFORCEMENT OF ADJUDICATION
DECISIONS
October 2021
Aakon Construction Services Ltd v Pure Fitout
Associated Ltd is the third case in which the
High Court in Ireland has enforced an
adjudicator’s decision following an
adjudication under the Construction
Contracts Act 2013 (the “Act”). The Court has
taken this opportunity to set out some key
principles underpinning adjudication in
Ireland, emphasising that case law from
England & Wales cannot simply be “read
across” to the Act because the Irish
legislation differs in a number of important
respects from the equivalent legislation in
the UK.
We recently discussed cases in which the
High Court in Ireland ruled in favour of
enforcing an adjudicator’s decision (in our
briefings here and here).
In the latest case, Aakon Construction
Services Ltd v Pure Fitout Associated Ltd, the
background to the dispute referred to

9 | P a g e
adjudication was that Aakon entered into a
subcontract with Pure Fitout, the main
contractor. Following termination of the
subcontract, Aakon delivered a payment
claim notice to which Pure Fit Out did not
respond. Aakon also made alternative
arguments about the value of additional
works required to comply with Pure Fitout’s
instructions. Aakon referred the matter to
adjudication.
In the adjudication, Aakon said that Pure
Fitout’s failure to respond to the payment
claim notice within 21 days entitled Aakon to
be paid the full invoiced amount. This was an
interesting argument in the context of
section 4 of the Act which, as the Court
noted: (a) does not set out the consequences
of a failure on the part of the paying party to
deliver a response within the required time;
and (b) does not state that, in the absence of
a response, the amount claimed in the
payment claim notice is payable by default.
Pure Fitout’s arguments in the adjudication
were that the payment claim notice was
invalid on the basis that it had several
deficiencies. Alternatively, Pure Fitout made
detailed submissions to demonstrate that
Aakon had not established entitlement to the
sums claimed in accordance with the
contract mechanisms relating to variations.
The Adjudicator’s Decision
The adjudicator issued a decision in favour of
Aakon, finding that the payment claim notice
was valid under both the sub-contract and
the Act.
The adjudicator considered that Pure Fitout’s
failure to respond to the payment claim and,
in particular, to serve a “valid pay less notice”,
triggered a requirement to pay the full
amount claimed. The adjudicator indicated
he would not evaluate the sum that was
“properly” payable under the claim (by
evaluating the measured works and
variations). Pure Fitout would have to pay
the amount in the adjudicator’s decision, and
then it would be entitled to refer a new
adjudication if it still wished to dispute the
true value of the claim. In reaching this
conclusion, the adjudicator took into account
the judgment in Grove Developments Ltd v
S&T (UK) Ltd, in which the Court in England &
Wales held that an earlier finding that a
default payment had been triggered did not
preclude subsequent adjudication or
litigation on the question of the “true” value
of the payment claim.
Application to Court to enforce the
Adjudicator’s Decision
When Aakon applied to the High Court to
enforce the decision, Pure Fitout resisted on
two main grounds. It is important to note
that in proceedings for the enforcement of
adjudicator’s decisions, the court will be
concerned with ensuring that the procedural
requirements for the adjudication have been
complied with.
1. Jurisdiction

10 | P a g e
The first ground concerned the jurisdiction
of the adjudicator. Pure Fitout argued that
an adjudicator’s jurisdiction is defined by the
notice of intention to refer the payment
dispute for adjudication (the “Notice of
Intention to Refer”). Pure Fitout claimed the
Notice of Intention to Refer was invalid,
describing it as ambiguous in a number of
respects. It submitted that several claims
were advanced under the Notice of Intention
to Refer, evidenced also by Aakon having to
make two attempts to apply to the
Chairperson of the Construction Contracts
Adjudication Panel for the appointment of an
adjudicator (having been directed by the
Construction Contracts Adjudication Service
to reapply). Pure Fitout also submitted that
the adjudicator’s decision went beyond the
terms of the payment dispute that had been
referred to him.
The Court rejected these arguments. The
wording of the Notice of Intention to Refer
was not ambiguous. The issue underpinning
the dispute decided by the adjudicator (that
is, whether the failure by Pure Fitout to
respond to the payment claim notice
triggered an entitlement for Aakon to be paid
the full claim amount) was perfectly obvious
from the details in the Notice, so there was
no basis for saying the adjudicator exceeded
his jurisdiction. Furthermore, Pure Fitout
was able to prepare a very comprehensive
response to this claim.
As to Pure Fitout’s arguments that the notice
was invalid, the court characterised these as
being concerned with the merits of one of the
issues referred to the adjudicator. The
adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide that
issue and Pure Fitout could not resist an
enforcement application by arguing that the
adjudicator’s decision was incorrect. This
finding appears to confirm the court’s role on
enforcement of adjudicators’ decisions being
to review the integrity of the procedure,
rather than substantive findings of the
adjudicator.
2. Fair Procedures
The second ground on which Pure Fitout
resisted enforcement of the decision
concerned the requirements of fair
procedures and constitutional justice.
Pure Fitout argued that the adjudicator failed
to consider all of its lines of defence.
The Court did not accept this, noting that the
adjudicator’s decision acknowledged that
one of Pure Fitout’s lines of defence - based
on the “true” value of the works under the
payment claim notice - was not being
considered by the adjudicator.
Nor did the Court consider there had been a
breach of fair principles. The adjudicator in
effect held that the legal consequence of
Pure Fitout not responding to the payment
claim notice was that it had to pay the entire
claim. The Court indicated it was not
concerned with whether this interpretation
of the legal position was correct, but rather
the narrow issue of whether failure by the
adjudicator to embark on a “true” valuation

11 | P a g e
of the works constituted a breach of fair
procedures. The purpose of enforcement
proceedings focused on whether there had
been a breach of fair procedures and the
Court was not concerned with determining
whether principles similar to those stated in
Grove Developments Ltd v S&T (UK) Ltd
should be applied to the Act.
What are some of the key
messages conveyed by the Court in
this judgment?
- The Act put in place a statutory scheme
of adjudication whereby payment
disputes under construction contracts
can be heard and determined in a very
short period of time. The process is
designed to be far more expeditious
than conventional litigation or
arbitration.
- To assist in achieving compliance with a
tight timeframe, the Act allows an
adjudicator to take the initiative in
ascertaining the facts and the law in
relation to the payment dispute. The
role of an adjudicator is more
inquisitorial than that of a court.
- The Court endorsed the principles set
out at paragraph 12 of Principle
Construction Ltd v Beneavin
Contractors Ltd. It stated that the fast-
track process would be of limited
benefit if the outcome could not be
enforced promptly. Thus the Act makes
the adjudicator’s decision binding in the
interim, unless and until superseded by
another decision. The adjudicator’s
decision gives rise to an immediate
payment obligation but the paying party
may pursue the matter further (in
arbitral or court proceedings) and, if
successful, recover any overpayment.
This is sometimes described as “pay
now, argue later”.
- Given that the “pay now, argue later”
approach presents, in certain instances,
a risk of injustice, Courts in England &
Wales have identified two grounds for
not enforcing an adjudicator’s decision:
breach of jurisdiction and breach of fair
procedure. While the case law in
England & Wales is of great assistance,
it cannot simply be “read across” to the
Act and the procedures governing
enforcement.
- In Ireland, the precise contours of the
Court’s discretion to refuse to enforce
an adjudicator’s decision should be
developed incrementally. One has to
consider whether jurisdiction is
concerned only with the initial
jurisdiction of the adjudicator to accept
the appointment or whether an error of
law made during the adjudication might
mean an adjudicator acted outside
his/her jurisdiction. It will be interesting
to see how this particular aspect
evolves.
- The role of the Court in an enforcement
application is narrow. The Court is

12 | P a g e
entitled to confirm that the adjudicator’s
decision does not exceed the scope of
the referral of the payment dispute to
the adjudicator (the “Referral”). This can
also be seen through the lens of fair
procedures as the Referral needs to be
adequately particularised to allow the
responding party to know the case to
defend. The Court should not enforce
an adjudicator’s decision which has
clearly been reached in breach of fair
procedures.
- There are several important differences
between the Irish and UK legislative
frameworks, some of which are
summarised below. By way of
reminder, the Court in Aakon was very
clear in stating that UK case law, whilst
helpful in many instances, cannot
simply be read across to the Irish
context.
o Because adjudication in Ireland is a
statutory entitlement (whereas UK
law gives effect to adjudication by
implying terms into construction
contracts), an adjudicator’s
decision in Ireland may be
amenable to judicial review.
o It should not be assumed that a
Notice of Intention to Refer has the
same status as a notice of
adjudication under UK law. The Act
is silent on the interrelationship
between (i) a Notice of Intention to
Refer, and (ii) the subsequent
Referral. However, the Act
envisages that the Referral will be
accompanied by extensive
documentation and the Code of
Practice contemplates it will to a
large extent be self-contained and
will itself identify the relevant
details of the dispute. Provided
that the Notice of Intention to Refer
identifies the gravamen of the
payment dispute and, in particular,
the construction contract; the
parties; the site address; the
payment claim notice; the response
to the payment claim notice; and
the sum claimed, then the
refinement of legal argument in the
Referral will normally be
permissible.
o It is permissible to pursue more
than a single dispute in an
adjudication and alternative
arguments advanced on behalf of
an applicant in support of its
payment claim do not constitute
separate “disputes”. The litmus test
in assessing the adequacy of a
Notice of Intention to Refer must be
whether the alleged defects
impinged upon the responding
party’s ability to defend the claim
against it.
o The wording of the Act - as
contrasted with the law in England
& Wales - might suggest that
referring the dispute further for

13 | P a g e
arbitral or court proceedings might
necessitate a challenge to the
adjudicator’s decision head on,
rather than de novo proceedings.
This judgment signals a careful analysis of
some of the main issues in adjudication in
Ireland. Even though, in this case, the Court
did not consider it appropriate to look at the
merits of the adjudicator’s decision, it
indicated that an error of law made during an
adjudication might be seen as outside the
jurisdiction of the adjudicator. The Court
signalled that: “As the case law evolves, it will
be necessary to address more difficult
questions, such as whether errors of law are
similarly capable of examination in the context
of an application for leave to enforce.”
Not the End of the Matter
However, that was not the end of the matter.
The High Court published a second judgment
considering the form of the enforcement
order to be made.
As might be expected, Pure Fitout had itself
referred an adjudication to obtain a “true
value” of the sum it owed Aakon. This led to
a second adjudicator’s decision valuing the
works at less than half the figure in the first
adjudicator’s decision.
Pure Fitout argued that the second
adjudicator’s decision superseded the first
adjudicator’s decision.
The Court rejected this argument. It said the
interrelationship between a first and second
adjudication is not clear cut and would
require careful consideration of the
legislative intent underlying the Act. It was
not appropriate to do this here for several
reasons.
First, Pure Fitout had not adduced the
necessary evidence (such as the second
adjudicator’s decision). Second, the legal
basis of Pure Fitout’s argument was
misconceived. It relied on section 6(10) of the
Act, but that section required a different
decision in arbitral or court proceedings
before an adjudicator’s decision was
superseded. The existence of a subsequent
adjudicator’s decision was “merely a factor
which a court might, in a suitable case, take into
account in the exercise of its discretion to grant
leave to enforce.” Third, it was inconsistent for
Pure Fitout to argue that it could pursue a
second adjudication without having
complied with a first adjudication decision,
while also relying on Grove Developments
Ltd v S&T (UK) Ltd.
Accordingly the Court ordered the full
amount in the first adjudication to be paid. It
ruled that the Court’s power under section 22
of the Courts Act 1981 to order interest on a
judgment debt does not apply to the
enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision
(though interest from the date of the Court’s
judgment would accrue under the Debtors
(Ireland) Act 1840). Costs were awarded to
Aakon as the successful party in the
enforcement proceedings.

14 | P a g e
The authors would like to thank Laragh Lee for
her contribution to this briefing.
Ten Earlsfort Terrace
Dublin 2
D02 T380
Ireland
T: +353 1 920 1000
F: +353 1 920 1020
E: dublin@arthurcox.com
Niav O’Higgins
+353 1 920 1090
niav.ohiggins@arthurcox.com
Karen Killoran
+353 1 920 1097
karen.killoran@arthurcox.com
Niamh McGovern
+353 1 920 1208
Niamh.McGovern@arthurcox.com
Katrina Donnelly
T: +35319202122
Katrina.Donnelly@arthurcox.com
CALCULATION OF FINAL DATES FOR
PAYMENTS
We are all now very (and, perhaps, overly!)
familiar with the use of the phrase 'smash and
grab' in adjudication. All sorts of arguments
with regards to this type of adjudication have
been before the courts. However, I recently
represented a sub-sub-contractor in
adjudication proceedings in which everything
largely turned on a novel point of law.
By way of background, a sub-sub-contractor
(my client) was engaged by a sub-contractor to
undertake a works package at a particular site.
There were problems throughout the project
and the sub-contractor's valuation of the work
regularly fell well below the sub-sub-
contractor's valuation included in its monthly
applications for payment. Payments from the
sub-contractor were also regularly very late
indeed. At various points during 2020 the
parties entered periods of protracted
negotiations over valuation and payment, but
an amicable solution was never found.
In December 2020 the sub-sub-contractor
applied for payment in the usual manner. The
sub-contractor responded with a pay less
notice, purportedly served not later than five
days prior to the final date for payment (the
final date for payment being forty-five days
from application date). However, upon a
review of the documents, my view was that the

15 | P a g e
sub-contractor had actually served the pay less
notice four days prior to the final date for
payment (one day later than the latest date
upon which it could be validly served). I
recommended to my client that the dispute be
referred to adjudication on the basis that the
pay less notice was invalid and the full sum
claimed in the application for payment (some
c£450k) should have in fact been paid by the
final date for payment. My client (the Referring
Party hereinafter) agreed, and we commenced
adjudication proceedings against the sub-
contractor (the Responding Party hereinafter),
seeking full payment of the sum contained in
the Referring Party's application on the basis
that a payment and/or pay less notice had not
been validly served in response to it. Nothing
really out of the ordinary there, so far.
However, where this becomes more
interesting is that this particular dispute turned
on an express term of the sub-contract (one of
the JCT forms) which provided that:
"Where under this Sub-Contract and act is
required to be done within a specified period of
days after or from a specified date, the period
shall begin immediately after that date. Where
the period would include Christmas Day, Good
Friday or a day which under the Banking and
Financial Dealings Act 1971 is a bank holiday
that day shall be excluded"
The Referring Party had issued its application
for payment on 31st December 2020. The
Responding Party had served a purported pay
less notice on 10th February 2021.
In the adjudication proceedings the parties
were in agreement that the final date for
payment was 45 days from the application
date. The parties were also in agreement that,
if to be validly served, the pay less notice had
to be served not later than 5 days prior to the
final date for payment.
The Referring Party said that the final date for
payment was 14th February 2021 (that being
45 days after the application date of 31st
December 2020), and that the latest date on
which a pay less notice could be validly served
was therefore 9th February 2021 (5 days prior
to the final date for payment).
The Responding Party said that it agreed that
the date from which the final date for payment
was to be calculated was the application date
of 31st December 2020. However, the
Responding Party disagreed that the final date
for payment was 14th February 2021. The
Responding Party said that, when accounting
for the clause I set out above, the final date for
payment was actually 15th February 2021
(because New Year's Day (1st January 2021)
was a bank holiday and should therefore be
discounted when calculating the 45 days from
the application date for the purposes of the
final date for payment). The Responding Party
said that because the final date for payment

16 | P a g e
was 15th February 2021, its pay less notice was
validly served on 10th February 2021.
I argued that the Responding Party was
misconceived because the clause I set out
above only applied when "an act is required to
be done within a specified period of days after
or from a specified date" and was therefore not
engaged in this case [emphasis added].
For example, the clause would be engaged
where a payment notice is required to be given
not later than five days after the due date and
one of those days is a bank holiday (in which
case the period for the giving of the notice
would of course then be six days). Such a
scenario meets precisely with the express
drafting/words used in the clause (it being an
act required to be done within a specified
period of days (that period being five
days) after a specified date (that date being
the due date)).
By way of a further example, the clause would
also be engaged where a pay less notice is
required to be given not later than five days
before the final date for payment and one of
those days is a bank holiday (in which case the
period for the giving of the notice would of
course then be six days). Such a scenario meets
precisely with the express drafting/words used
in the clause (it being an act required to be
done within a specified period of days (that
period being five days) from a specified
date (that date being the final date for
payment)).
I argued that the clause I set out above plainly
does not apply (and, indeed, nor does it in any
way state or otherwise indicate that it applies)
to merely the calculation of a future date
(including, without limitation, the calculation
of the final date for payment) because the
calculation of a future date is plainly not an act
which is required to be done within a
specified period of days after or from a
specified date; it is merely the calculation of a
future date (the relevant date in the instant
case being the final date for payment).
Consequently, the clause I set out above had
absolutely no impact whatsoever upon the
final date for payment in the circumstances.
The Responding Party argued that payment is
clearly a physical act required to be done
within a specified period of days (45) after or
from a specified date (31st December 2020).
The giving of a notice is also a physical act
(albeit with different timescales). It said that
the clause I set out above therefore applies to
both situations.
The Adjudicator (a very prominent barrister)
agreed with my argument and found in favour
of my client (the Referring Party). The
Responding Party failed to pay the sum
awarded so we commenced proceedings in the
TCC to enforce the Adjudicator's Decision. In
response, the Responding Party commended

17 | P a g e
Part 8 proceedings to have the correct
interpretation of the clause I set out above
finally decided. A hearing date was set, but a
few days prior to the hearing the parties
managed to reach a settlement and the
proceedings were then disposed of.
It was actually a very interesting adjudication
and one which I feel could have gone either
way in the TCC (although I do, of course,
believe that my argument was far stronger
than theirs!). Anyhow, I guess we shall never
find out now unless and until this particular
point comes before the courts in the future.
On a related note (and the reason why this
article may be of wider interest), many of the
JCT forms of contract contain a clause similar
to the one which I set out above. Section 116
of the Housing Grants Construction and
Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended by the
Local Democracy Economic Development and
Construction Act 2009) also contains a very
similar provision, and for ease of reference I
reproduce it below:
"116 Reckoning periods of time
(1) For the purposes of this Part periods of time
shall be reckoned as follows.
(2) Where an act is required to be done within
a specified period after or from a specified
date, the period begins immediately after that
date.
(3) Where the period would include Christmas
Day, Good Friday or a day which under the
[1971 c. 80.] Banking and Financial Dealings
Act 1971 is a bank holiday in England and
Wales or, as the case may be, in Scotland, that
day shall be excluded."
Dean Sayers is a Director with Sayers
Commercial Ltd, and is available to sit as an
adjudicator, arbitrator, mediator, and expert
determiner
E: dean@sayerscommercial.co.uk
T: 07710 422671

18 | P a g e
UK ADJDUCIATORS LONDON 2021
ADJDUCIATION & ARBITRATION
CONFERENCE
The conference was another great success with
attendess from across the globe. If you want to
view the six panels videos or read the
conference pack please go to the UK
Adjudicators website.
https://www.ukadjudicators.co.uk/conferenc
es

19 | P a g e
SCL ANNUAL LONDON LUNCH
UK Adjudicators will be hosting a table again
at the SCL London lunch on the 11 February
2022. It is being held at the Grosvenor House
from 12.00.
If you would like to attend the cost is £90.00
per person plus VAT.
Please email if you would like to attend and
an invoice will be forwarded that requires
immediate payment:
sean.gibbs@hanscombintercontinental.co.uk
TCC COURT JUDGEMENTS
October
• Bdw Trading Ltd v URS Corporation Ltd
& Anor [2021] EWHC 2796 (TCC) (22
October 2021)
• Buckinghamshire Council v FCC
Buckinghamshire Ltd [2021] EWHC
2867 (TCC) (26 October 2021)
• Equitix Eeef Biomass 2 Ltd v Fox &
Ors [2021] EWHC 2781 (TCC) (19
October 2021)
• The Good Law Project Ltd, R (On the
Application Of) v Secretary of State for
Health and Social Care (No.2) (Costs of
Third Party Disclosure) [2021] EWHC
2783 (TCC) (14 October 2021)
• Mansion Place Ltd v Fox Industrial
Services Ltd [2021] EWHC 2747
(TCC) (14 October 2021)
• Vodafone Ltd v Secretary of State for
Foreign, Commonwealth And
Development Affairs & Anor [2021]
EWHC 2793 (TCC) (20 October 2021)

20 | P a g e
https://www.drb.org/drbf-middle-east-north-
africa-regional-conference-04-november
https://www.drb.org/index.php?option=com_
jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=123&Ite
mid=138&year=2021&month=11&day=08&tit
le=drbf-25th-annual-connections-conference-
virtual&uid=fc5f43e22a4362de819ea555a3ac
a9e3
FORTHCOMING EVENTS
Monday, November 1,
2021 - 5:00 PM
Asset tracing and recovery in construction
disputes
Online
Moderator: Audrey Byrne, McCann
Fitzgerald, Dublin
Speaker(s): Paula Gibbs, Solicitor,
Louise Wright, Global Advocacy and
Legal Counsel Law Firm, Paul Jacobs,
Grant Thornton & Alexander Thavenot,
Simmons & Simmons
For more info
Tuesday, November 2,
2021 - 9:00 AM
An Introduction to Construction Insurance
Online
Speaker(s): Rob Goodship, Fenchurch
Law and Rachel Heald, Hawkswell
Kilvington
For more info
2021 - 6:30 PM

21 | P a g e
The Supreme Court decision in Triple Point v
PTT
London
Chair: Mr Justice Waksman
Speaker(s): Helen Dennis, 4 Pump
Court
Venue: National Liberal Club and Online
For more info
Wednesday, November 3,
2021 - 5:30 PM
9th International Society of Construction Law
Conference
Overseas
Venue: Cordis Hotel, 83 Symonds St,
Grafton, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
For more info
Monday, November 8,
2021 - 6:30 PM
Possession of the Site – considerations and
cases
Online
Chair: Chris Kirby-Turner, Partner,
Thomson Snell & Passmore LLP
Speaker(s): Jane Ryland, Solicitor &
Adjudicator, Brachers LLP
For more info
2021 - 6:00 PM
Trouble and strife...The marriage of
inconvenience between lawyer and expert
Birmingham
Chair: Michael O'Shea
Speaker(s): Adam Constable QC and
Paul Buckingham – Keating Chambers
For more info
Friday, November 26,
2021 - 12:00 PM
The SCL Lunch in Dublin
Ireland
Speaker(s): Mr Justice David Barniville,
Irish Court of Appeal
Venue: The Round Room at the
Mansion House, Dawson Street, Dublin
2, D02 XK40
Full details in this flyer
For more info
Tuesday, December 7,
2021 - 6:30 PM
Contract renegotiation, consideration and duress
in the light of Covid
London
Chair: Rachael Ansell QC, Chair of
TECBAR, and Jonathan Pawlowski,
Chair of SCL
Speaker(s): The Right Honourable Lord
Justice Coulson, President of SCL
Venue: National Liberal Club and Online
For more info
Tuesday, February 1, 202

22 | P a g e
SCL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
2021
The Society of Construction Law 9th
International Conference has been postponed
till November 2021.
http://www.constructionlaw2021.com/scl21
Sean Gibbs is speaking at the 9th International
Society of Construction Law Conference 2021.
The Conference takes place from the 3 to 5
November 2021 and there are virtual and
physical attendee options.
The panel session is entitled - Adjudication,
Past Present and Future
Fellow panel speakers include Joanna S. of LVM
Law Chambers LLC, Johan Beyers of Keating
Chambers and John C. of On Q Consulting
Limited

23 | P a g e

Programme – As at 01/11/2021
Thursday 4 November
Opening Ceremony / Main Plenary
8.30am – 8.40am Mihi – Miriama Kamo (Ngāi Tahu/Ngāti Mutunga)
Welcome – Stuart Robertson, Conference Chair and President SCL (New Zealand)
8.40am – 9.10am Opening address
Penalty clauses and the New Zealand Supreme Court decision in l27 Hobson Street Ltd v
Honey Bees Preschool Ltd – Have the foundations shifted?
Justice Susan Thomas, Chief High Court Judge (New Zealand)
Kindly sponsored by Badcock Law
9.10am – 9.55am Keynote speaker
Case Managing Building Litigation During COVID 19: Will We Go Back To The Way We Were
The Honourable Justice David Hammerschlag (Australia)
Kindly sponsored by Dentons Kensington Swan
10.00am – 10.30am Morning tea
Session 1:
Moderator: John Green (Building Disputes Tribunal)
Session 1A:
Moderator: John Bierre (Morgan Coakle)
10.30am – 11.20am Transparency in dispute
resolution
Primary Panelist: John
Tackaberry (United Kingdom)
Panelists:
Niraj Modha (United Kingdom)
Arran Dowling (United Kingdom)
Joseph McManus Jnr (USA)
10.30am –
11.20am
A global perspective on construction
regulatory reform: Where to from here?
Primary Panelist: Matthew Bell
(Australia)
Panelists:
Jeanette Barbarao (Australia)
Justin Bates (United Kingdom)
Deirdre Ni Fhlonin (Ireland)
11.20am –
12.10pm
Construction arbitration: Is it still
relevant
Primary Panelist: Mark Colthart
(New Zealand)
Panelists:
Royden Hindle (New Zealand)
Kim Lovegrove (Australia)
11.20am –
12.10pm
Negligence Divergence: When is a Duty of
Care Owed in Construction?
Primary Panelist: Julian Bailey (United
Kingdom)
Panelists:
Wayne Jocic (Australia)
Andrew Hazelton (New Zealand)
12.10pm –
1.10pm
Lunch
Lunchtime speaker
Moderator: Nick Gillies (Hesketh Henry)
12.30pm – 1.00pm Risk Through a Seismic Engineering Lens
Jared Keen (New Zealand)
Kindly sponsored by Hesketh Henry
Session 2:
Moderator: Matt Maling (Lane Neave)
Session 2A:
Moderator: Shanti Frater (Simpson Grierson)
1.10pm – 2.00pm Is New Zealand punching above
its weight and leading the way in
1.10pm –
2.00pm
Issues with extra-territorial fabrication:
delays and quality

which resolution of construction
disputes is changing?
Primary Panelist: Graeme
Christie (New Zealand)
Panelists:
John Sharkey (Australia)
Sarah Adams (Australia)
Primary Panelist: Rebecca Saunders
(New Zealand)
Panelists:
Andrew Hales (Australia)
Jeremy Glover (United Kingdom)
2.00pm – 2.50pm The Best Defense is a Good
Offense: Keys to Effective Claims
Management and Resolution-A
Global Perspective
Primary Panelist: Anamaria
Popescu (USA)
Panelists:
Thomas Crist (USA)
Laina Chan (Australia)
Aleisa Crepin (Australia)
2.00pm –
2.50pm
Implicit Assumptions
Sean Brady (Australia)
Kindly sponsored by Simpson Grierson
3.00pm – 3.30pm Afternoon tea
Session 3:
Moderator: Julia Flattery (Duncan Cotterill)
Session 3A:
Moderator: Helen Macfarlane (Hesketh Henry)
3.30pm – 4.20pm Adjudication, Past Present and
Future
Primary Panelist: Sean Gibbs
(United Kingdom)
Panelists:
Joanna Seetoh (Singapore)
Johan Beyers (South Africa)
John Cock (Hong Kong)
3.30pm –
4.20pm
Setting up for success: a consultant’s
perspective on risk and liability
Helen Davidson (New Zealand)
Andrew Read (New Zealand)
Hannah Bryce (New Zealand)
4.20pm – 5.10pm Conflicting objectives: How
contractor insolvency is
challenging established legal
protections for principals and
subcontractors
Primary Panelist: William Potter
(New Zealand)
Panelists:
Michael Chan (Hong Kong)
Lisa Curran (New Zealand)
4.20pm –
5.10pm
Buildability Risk - Allocation and
Mitigation
Primary Panelist: Thomas Richards
(United Kingdom)
Panelists:
Hamish Bolland (New Zealand)
Ben Bradstreet (Australia)
5.10pm – 5.30pm Day 1 closing remarks
Routledge Paper Prize presentation
SCL International Medal presentation
Announcement of 2023 conference

Friday 5 November
Main Plenary/Keynote
Moderator: Anamaria Popescu
8.30am – 9.15am Keynote speaker
Chinese outbound investment in the Pacific region and international dispute resolution
Sarah Grimmer - Hong Kong, Secretary General, Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre
Kindly sponsored by Berkeley Research Group (BRG)
Session 4:
Moderator: Janine Stewart (MinterEllisonRuddWatts)
Session 4A:
Moderator: Moderator: Michael Taylor (Russell
McVeagh)
9.15am – 10.05am There’s Always Time to Get it Right
Primary Panelist: Simon Hughes
QC (United Kingdom)
Panelists:
Peter Brogden (United Kingdom)
Carla Mills (Australia)
Chris Horsfall (Australia)
John McMillan (United Kingdom)
Wendy MacLaughlin (Australia)
9.15am –
10.05am
Is there a case for mandatory
independence of contract
administrators?
Primary Panelist: Stuart Robertson (New
Zealand)
Panelists:
Karen Groulx (Canada)
Kirsti Olson (Scotland and England)
Helen Macfarlane (New Zealand)
10.05am – 10.30am Morning tea
Session 5: Session 5A:
Moderator: Amy Rutherford (Greenwood Roche)
10.30am – 12.30pm Academic forum
Facilitators: Dr Matthew Bell
(Melbourne Law School) and
Associate Professor Dr Naseem
Ameer Ali (Massey University)
10.30am –
11.20am
Time is money: making delay and
disruption evidence relevant, reliable and
persuasive
Primary Panelist: Tim Breakspear
(Australia)
Panelists:
Emily Simnor (New Zealand)
Scott Steigler (United Kingdom)
Keith Kirkwood (United Kingdom)
11.20am –
12.10pm
How BIM and Dispute Boards will prevent
disputes in construction projects in Brazil,
Chile and Peru
Primary Panelist: Marlon Ieiri (Brazil)
Panelists:
Alex Wagemann (Germany)
Gustavo Paredes (Peru)
12.30pm – 1.30pm Lunch
Lunchtime speaker
Moderator: Jo-Anne Knight (Simpson Grierson)
12.50pm – 1.20pm The interplay between International Commercial Courts and International Arbitration in the
resolution of Infrastructure Disputes
Professor Doug Jones AO & Professor Janet Walker
Kindly sponsored by Simpson Grierson
Session 6:
Moderator: James Lewis (Hesketh Henry)
Session 6A:
Moderator: Gavin Shaw (Beca)
1.30pm – 2.20pm Quantum meruit as a remedy in
construction law
1.30pm –
2.20pm
Collaborative (Mahi Ngatahi) Contracting
- are standard form contracts being
crafted (built) for change

Primary Panelist: Andrew Skelton
(New Zealand)
Panelists:
David Robertson (United Kingdom)
Zoe Bashford (New Zealand)
Primary Panelist: Anil Changaroth
(Singapore)
Panelists:
Anand Juddoo (Mauritius)
Sue Kim (London)
Laina Chan (London)
2.20pm – 3.10pm I'm a Contractor, Get Me Out of
Here!
Primary Panelist: Anne Connolly
(Singapore)
Panelists:
Jon Prudhoe (Singapore)
Ben Bury (Hong Kong)
David Ulbrick (Australia)
2.20pm –
3.10pm
How are novations and assignments likely
to dovetail with increasingly
sophisticated procurement models?
Primary Panelist: Mark Holland (New
Zealand)
Panelists:
Ian Becke (New Zealand)
Tristan Mao (New Zealand)
3.30pm – 4.00pm Afternoon tea
Session 7:
Moderator: Barbara Saegers
Session 7A:
Moderator: Marcus Hogan (NZ Institute of Architects)
4.00pm – 4.50pm Construction Arbitrations in India -
Recent Trends & Changes
Primary Panelist: Rohit Singhal
(India)
Panelists:
Ratan Singh (India)
Shourav Lahiri (Singapore)
4.00pm –
4.50pm
Perfect Procurement
Primary Panelist: Jonathan Forsey (New
Zealand)
Panelists:
Michael Weatherall (New Zealand)
John Kehoe (Australia)
5.00pm – 5.30pm Closing remarks

Joint Sponsors
SOCIETY OF
CONSTRUCTION LAW
HONG KONG
SCLHK ONE DAY
INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE 2021
SCLHK is pleased to invite you to its 2021 One Day International Conference
Please also note that in light of the social distancing measures imposed by the
Government, two-thirds of attendees are required to be vaccinated and the SCLHK
reserves the right to decline entry to anyone who is not vaccinated.
DATE AND TIME
Friday 12 November 2021 at 9:00am (with registration from 8:30am)
VENUE
Hong Kong Football Club, 3 Sports Road, Happy Valley, Hong Kong
THE CONFERENCE
The theme for this year’s conference is Hong Kong Tomorrow – Opportunities and
Challenges for Future Projects.
Over the past few years, Hong Kong has experienced remarkable events which have
played a major role in shaping the landscape of our construction industry. From the
global pandemic to the various mega projects spearheaded by the Government, and the
proposed implementation of security of payment into public works contracts, this year’s
conference will explore issues arising from these impending changes, and how each
and every construction practitioner can better prepare, and be prepared, to cope with
the changes.
We are delighted to announce that Mr Lam Sai-hung, Permanent Secretary for Development
(Works), Development Bureau of the HKSAR, will be our Keynote Speaker.
PROGRAMME
COCKTAIL RECEPTION
Wednesday 10 November 2021, China Club, Central from 6:30pm to 9:30pm
CONFERENCE (Friday 12 November 2021)
Keynote Address – Mr Lam Sai-hung, Permanent Secretary for Development (Works),
Development Bureau of the HKSAR
Morning Session 1
Construction 2.0 – Project governance issues in previous infrastructure
projects, lessons learnt and what can be done for future projects?
In recent years, the Hong Kong construction industry has witnessed a series of incidents
concerning high profile projects, giving rise to issues such as commissioning delays,
site safety and construction delivery quality. The Government has been advocating
“Construction 2.0”, with various measures to ensure the overall productivity, quality,
safety and environmental performance of the industry which have given rise to changes
to the corresponding contractual arrangements, health and safety legislation reform.
What are the risks arising and how they can be addressed?
Panellists include Mr Kaiser Leung, Des Voeux Chambers; Mr Channi Matharu, Airport
Authority; Mr Boyd Merrett, Chun Wo Construction; Mr Paul Shieh SC, Temple Chambers;
Mr James Niehorster, Pacific Chambers.
Morning Session 2
Common contractual issues in main contracts and sub-contracts and
how they can be mitigated in future projects
A review and discussion of:
• The implications brought about by the Government’s adoption of the New Engineering
Contracts, and what potential risks that every party should be aware of?
• Allocation and assessment of potential risk – what are the respective contractual
arrangements that could be implemented by employers / consultants / contractors in
addressing these risks?
• How contractors should deal with these risks in their sub-contracts?
• How design liabilities should be distributed between the employer, consultants
and contractors?
Panellists include Mr Andrew Goddard QC, Atkin Chambers; Mr Mohammed Talib,
Pinsent Masons; Ms Wanjing Goh, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner; Mr Julian Cohen,
Resolution Chambers; Mr Paul Kimberley, Leighton Asia.

Afternoon Session 3
Security of payment and adjudication – Proposed scheme in HK and
some practical guidance on Adjudication from other jurisdictions
A review and discussion of the experience of how adjudication has affected the construction
industry in Australia, United Kingdom, Singapore, and a discussion on the ramifications
of the Hong Kong Government’s upcoming implementation of security of payment
provisions into public works contracts.
Panellists include Mr Wayne Martin AC QC, 39 Essex Chambers; Mr Jeremy Nicholson
QC, 4 Pump Court, Mr Peter Clayton, Leeds Beckett University; Mr Ng Kim Beng, Rajah
& Tann; Ms Serene Hiew, HLP Lawyers.
Afternoon Session 4
Risks and opportunities facing future projects
A review and discussion of the risks and opportunities contractors (locally or abroad)
may face in light of the global changes, trends and directions of the Government, including:
• Impact of the global pandemic on contractors and the industry and what it means
going forward;
• The Greater Bay Area development – what are the potential opportunities for the
Hong Kong construction sector? What are the risks and difficulties in these projects
and what are the implications when the two different legal systems interface with
each other;
• With the expected high volume of construction works from these mega projects,
what are the potential risks arising in terms of resources (materials/labour), and whether
they can be addressed by corresponding contractual arrangements (for example,
in light of the recent court decisions on pre-bid agreements);
• Whether any amendments to the current legislation will be required in order to facilitate
the upcoming projects and what are the risks that are brought about;
• Maintaining sustainability and making use of collaborative working to engage stakeholders
digitally, in times of restricted movement arising out of the global pandemic and what
it means going forward
Panellists include Mr David Thomas QC, Keating Chambers; Mr Tom Fu, Mayer Brown;
Dr Ann Kerr, Mott MacDonald; Mr Michael Camerlengo, KPMG China; Mr Roger Bayliss,
MTRC.
SCLHK ONE DAY
INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE 2021

REGISTRATION FORM
Name
Please reserve tickets for the following:
SCLHK members; Members of Supporting Organisations; Non-members
Early Bird (on or before Friday, 22 October 2021)
I enclose a cheque for HK$ payable to “Society of Construction Law Hong Kong”
I have received 0 dose / 1 dose / 2 doses of Covid -19 vaccination(s).
My address is
Tel (daytime) Fax
Email
More information at www.scl.hk/meetings.php
Please register by sending form by fax to +852 2524 2171 or
by email to admin@scl.hk or
post Society of Construction Law Hong Kong, 38/F, Two Exchange Square, Central, Hong Kong
SCLHK ONE DAY INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 2021
Hong Kong Football Club, 3 Sports Road, Happy Valley, Hong Kong
Friday 12 November 2021
Registration Fees Rates (per ticket)
Early Bird Regular
� SCLHK members: HK$2,200 HK$2,550
� Members of supporting organisations: HK$2,400 HK$2,650
� Non-members: HK$2,650 HK$2,850
Discounts are also available for multiple tickets for non-members booked as a group:
� 5-9 tickets: HK$2,400 HK$2,650
� 10+ tickets: HK$2,200 HK$2,450
• Early bird rates apply for tickets booked and paid for in full on or before Friday, 22 October 2021.
• All rates include conference materials, lunch and refreshments throughout the day.
• Lawyers please note that CPD accreditation will be applied for from the Law Society of Hong Kong.
• Priority will be given to members, thereafter places will be allocated on a “first come, first served” basis.
Please register by returning the registration application slip below with your cheque to the address noted.
Special SCLHK Membership Offer
We are pleased to announce that attendees of this year’s Conference can apply for a special SCLHK membership deal.
For HK$1250 you will receive the inclusive membership package for the 2022/2023 session and we will include the balance of the
2021/2022 session. We will also waive the joining fee.
The inclusive membership package covers entrance to all of our evening talks during the periods mentioned above.
This offer is valid until 18 December 2021.

UK Adjudicators Newsletter November 2021

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to UK Adjudicators Newsletter November 2021

Similar to UK Adjudicators Newsletter November 2021 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

UK Adjudicators Newsletter November 2021