Construction Adjudication Law - Legal problem Coursework

Construction Adjudication Law - Legal problem - Coursework Example The architects in question who did the preliminary design had the obligation to check the ground conditions and foundation requirements. PCL bears a partial responsibility for the design flaw. The matter is referred to adjudication under clause 9.2 of the JCT Design and Building Contract. There were a number of issues with the adjudication process and this include a reliable information that the CEO of PDP and the Adjudicator went for a weekend in a country hotel where they were overhead discussing things related to the case. From the case study, there is the need for the following things and matters to be examined in relation to the relevant rules about: 1. The scope of the Adjudicator's obligations and whether it was met or not. 2. The independence of the Adjudicator. 3. The impartiality of the Adjudicator's processes in dealing with the case 4. The ability of the case to be escalated to a court dispute. Scope of Adjudication The main issue of contention is to define the actual que stion and the actual point of law that the adjudicator of the case at hand was supposed to handle. This is in response to the accusation of the CEO of PDP that the adjudicator addressed the wrong question. ... ication of the relevant provision, it can be said that the obligation of the Adjudicator in this case is to identify the procedure that was used by the contracting party and which party deserves to be held responsible for the damage. In other words, the Adjudicator has to examine the contract between PDP and PCL and identify who is responsible for the determination of the soil condition and the point in the contract that it went wrong. The evidence of both parties were to be examined and a conclusion could be drawn. However, in this case, it is apparent that the Adjudicator did not spend too much time studying those documents. Rather, he examined just two variables, the architects and PCL's relative positions. He did not go deep into the contract, neither did he set out a fair procedure. Hence, it can be concluded that he did not operate within the scope of the contract. Independence of the Adjudicator The Adjudicator happened to be the brother-in-law of the MD of PCL. This shows cle arly that they had an informal relationship that could have implications for the independence of the Adjudicator. The Adjudicator, as a professional, has codes of ethics in the profession he belongs to, whether he is a legal professional or a construction expert. Every adjudicator needs to be independent and be seen to be independent in his decisions and procedures3. In a landmark ruling in a construction arbitration case in France, which is part of European Union Law, it was stated that â€Å"An Arbitrator should not have any commercial or other similar connection with either party which may give rise to suspicion in the mind of a reasonable person that he may be biased†4. The implication is that there should be no relationship that exists between an adjudicator and any of the parties that