Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Adjudication dispute


I wish to dispute your news story on the Mott MacDonald and London & Regional Properties case (NCE 7 June 2007).

The article gives the wrong impression to construction consultants that adjudication is not appropriate because costs are disproportionate to the claim. This is not always so.

Every case must be considered on an individual basis on the cost-effectiveness of a specic route of dispute resolution.

There will be many cases where adjudication will be the best and most cost-effective solution.

The article also states that if parties do not pay the adjudicator on time, they lose their right to claim. Again, not so.

The article indicates that the failing was on the part of the parties for not paying. In fact the criticism was levied at the adjudicator for not following the statutory provisions.

Richard Swan, Trett Consulting, richard.swan@trett. com

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.