Anthony spoke as a panellist at the event hosted by 3PB Barristers and presented by The Midlands Adjudication Society which focused around Grove Developments v S&T.
The Panel discussed the effect of the 2 decisions (first instance and on appeal) in Grove Developments v S&T, in particular the jurisdictional issues that the decisions give rise to and their implications for ‘smash and grab’ adjudications.
In the course of this, the Panel and delegates also considered the High Court’s application of Grove in M Davenport Builders v Greer.
The discussions included:
- Whether the decisions in Grove and in Davenport have the effect of making the adjudication provisions under section 108 of the Act subordinate to the payment provisions of section 111, despite the fact that Parliament has stated no such thing in the legislation, and despite the express statutory right of a party to refer a dispute to adjudication “at any time”
- Whether a true value adjudication can be commenced before payment awarded under a ‘smash and grab’ adjudication has been made, or whether the decision in Davenport points towards a party being entitled to commence a true value adjudication prior to making payment under a ‘smash and grab’ adjudication, but not being entitled to rely on the decision as to the true value until the payment under the ‘smash and grab’ adjudication has been made.
- Whether there even needs to be a ‘smash and grab’ adjudication, or whether discharge of the payment obligations under sections 110 and 111 is actually the precondition to the commencement of a true value adjudication.
- Whether or not an adjudicator should resign from an appointment to a true value adjudication in the various foregoing circumstances.
Thanks to Tim Willis at the Adjudication Society for Chairing, the other panellist’s, James Bessy at Blake Morgan and 3PB’s Nick Kaplan and Nigel Ribbands and all those who attended and contributed.
For more coverage please click here