Employment analysis: Where the respondent’s representative became concerned that he was not fit to give evidence and participate in the hearing, in circumstances where the respondent was elderly and had previously had a stroke, the employment tribunal erred in not allowing the application for an adjournment of the hearing to enable the instruction of a medical expert to assess the respondent’s capacity to give evidence. The employment tribunal erred by (1) failing to take into account the principles in the Equal Treatment Bench Book in relation to incapacity, (2) asking the respondent direct questions about his state of health and his memory, and (3) making unfair findings against the consultant representing the respondent that he may not have taken proper instructions or that his concerns were not genuine, according to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Dispute Resolution analysis: On an application to adjourn a trial or other hearing on the grounds that a witness is unable to attend due to illness the court needs to answer two questions. The first of these is—is the witness genuinely disabled temporarily from attending court to give evidence. If the answer to this is affirmative, then the second question is—would it be fair to hold the applicant party to the trial date having regard to the importance of the evidence of the witness to the applicant party’s case and the desirability of the witness’s evidence being tested under cross examination before the trial judge. If the ensuing trial would not be a fair trial by reason of the absence of the witness, then the trial should be adjourned unless such adjournment would cause injustice to the other parties that cannot be compensated for in costs. On an appeal from the refusal of an adjournment where it is established that the witness is temporarily disabled from attending court, the question for the Court of Appeal is whether the judge’s decision was fair, not whether his decision was within the wide ambit of a discretion. Nevertheless, there may well be more than one fair outcome of such an application and the Court of Appeal will not weigh competing fair outcomes. Written by David Fisher, barrister and associate member, at New Square Chambers.

To adjudicate is to hear and determine a legal dispute and deliver a binding decision, usually after considering evidence and legal submissions from the parties. In everyday legal practice across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the term is used broadly for the exercise of judicial or quasi‑judicial decision‑making by courts, tribunals and certain decision‑makers.“Adjudicate” and “adjudication” are descriptive terms rather than precise statutory concepts, though particular procedures are defined in legislation. A key example is statutory construction adjudication (eg under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 in the UK and the Construction Contracts Act 2013 in Ireland), where an adjudicator gives a temporarily binding decision on payment or contractual disputes.Courts frequently refer to their role in “adjudicating” issues of fact, law or jurisdiction, including in civil, criminal, administrative and insolvency proceedings. Tribunals, regulators and disciplinary bodies are also said to adjudicate complaints, appeals or claims.Across the UK and Ireland the core idea is consistent: adjudication involves an impartial decision‑maker, a defined dispute, procedural fairness, and a reasoned determination intended to resolve the matter, subject to any rights of review or appeal.

A method of dispute resolution devised, originally, for use in the construction industry

Adjudication is a dispute resolution process.

This Practice Note provides links to adjudication Precedents available for use by a referring or responding party—both during the adjudication and in enforcement proceedings (including for a stay of enforcement application). It also includes draft advice to clients on the key features of adjudication

The Adjudication Society has appointed a new team to carry out its work in Ireland from 1 November 2023. The new team will be chaired by Éamonn Conlon SC and include Clare Cashin, Jarleth Heneghan and Alan Brady BL. They will work closely with Junior Vice-Chair Arran Dowling-Hussey.

This Practice Note considers the availability and use of declarations under CPR 8 in relation to adjudication proceedings. It looks at the various stages at which a declaration may be sought—before an adjudication has been commenced, while one is on foot and after an adjudication decision has been given. For general guidance on Part 8 claims, see Practice Note: CPR Part 8 claims (alternative procedure for claims). Why are Part 8 proceedings used? In respect of adjudication proceedings, declarations under CPR Part 8 are generally sought in order to: • clarify matters before or during the adjudication—eg to determine a potential breach of natural justice or jurisdictional challenge, or • obtain final determination on a point, the effect of which is to trump the adjudication decision (see, for example, Leeds City Council v Waco) The latter situation is far more common because it is not generally possible to prevent enforcement of an adjudication decision by alleging that it is wrong. A declaration can be a means of indirectly resisting the enforcement of the

Construction analysis: Adjudication has become a key tool in the construction industry, helping employers and contractors resolve disputes quickly and keep cash flowing on projects. But when insolvency enters the picture, things can get tricky—especially when it comes to enforcing adjudication decisions or allowing insolvent parties to take part in the process. In this insight, we take a closer look at the legal approach to the interaction between adjudication and insolvency in England and Wales and Singapore, and what to look forward to in Hong Kong SAR as the Construction Industry Security of Payment Ordinance was gazetted on 27 December 2024 and will come to effect fully on 28 August 2025.

ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions as at the date the guidance in this Practice Note was published. Commencing and progressing adjudication—what do you need to know? In this review of the key adjudication cases from 2016, we consider: • payment notices and final accounts—see below • contract considerations—doubts and amendments—see below • multiple adjudications and disputes—see below • jurisdiction and breach of natural jurisdiction—see below • adjudication enforcement—see below • recovering costs of adjudication—see below Payment notices and final accounts Payment notices and final accounts saw two important decisions this year, that of Mrs Justice O'Farrell in Kilker Projects v Purton dealing with adjudication and the absence of payment notices and that of the Court of Appeal in Complete Building Solutions v Brown and Brown which considered whether disputes as to the validity payment in different years were the same or different disputes. In J Murphy & Sons v W Maher

1 Any dispute or difference arising under or in connection with this [agreement OR Contract] may be referred to an adjudicator appointed at the request of either party by the [Insert details of

Produced in association with 4 Pump Court This Practice Note looks at what an adjudication decision encompasses, whether (and to what extent) reasons for the decision are required and the deadline for the decision. It also consider interim conclusions, the status and effect of a decision and compliance with the decision. What does the decision include? The decision of the adjudicator includes: • the actual award (ie that A is to pay £X to B), and • any finding in relation to the rights of the parties that forms an essential component of, or basis for, that award Where the adjudicator reaches conclusions on matters that are not essential to the calculation of a money award, those conclusions do not form part of the binding decision and may be the subject of a further adjudication (Hyder Consulting v Carillion). The distinction is often drawn as being between the 'operative' and the 'non-operative' parts of the decision—it is only the operative part that binds the parties (and which cannot be referred to a subsequent adjudicator—see Practice Note: