The initial stages of adjudication are highly time-pressured: an adjudicator must be appointed within seven days from the referring party’s Notice of Adjudication, and the dispute must be referred to the adjudicator within the same period. Further, construction contracts commonly specify that the adjudicator must be appointed by application to an adjudicator nominating body (ANB)—that application can be made only after the Notice of the Adjudication has been served. This means that the formalities of the adjudicator’s appointment must be concluded relatively quickly. In turn, where, as is typical, the nominated adjudicator requires parties to accept the bespoke terms and conditions of its appointment (T&Cs), parties will have limited time to review those T&Cs. However, parties should not overlook the adjudicator’s T&Cs. It is important not only that parties understand their liability for the adjudicator’s fees and costs, but also that they are aware of what their rights and obligations will be in the event that the adjudication does not follow its usual course—for example, if the parties wish to terminate the adjudicator’s appointment, or if a

Construction analysis: The Outer House of the Court of Session found that an adjudicator had failed to address one of the critical issues referred to it for determination and had therefore failed to exhaust its jurisdiction. As a result, the adjudicator’s decision was held to be unenforceable.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) granted a Part 8 declaration, after applying the restrictive four-stage gateway test in section 9.4.5 of the TCC Guide, enabling a contractor to resist enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision. Section 9.4.5 allows intervention where an adjudicator makes a clear jurisdictional error on a short, self-contained issue, resolvable without oral evidence, and where ignoring that error would be unconscionable. The underlying dispute concerned liquidated damages deducted by the contractor for alleged delay. The adjudicator ordered payment to the subcontractor on the basis that no contractual completion date existed. He rejected an August 2023 programme as not incorporated but failed to consider an earlier July 2023 programme that had been sent to the subcontractor, despite clause 6.8 of the subcontract specifying ‘Commencement and completion:—see attached programme’. The TCC held this omission was a clear error: the July programme was undeniably provided, and the issue was one of contractual incorporation, not factual dispute. Applying the objective test and principles of commercial sense, the court found that the July programme formed part of the subcontract. The adjudicator should therefore have undertaken a structured extension-of-time analysis rather than adopting a broad ‘reasonable period’ approach. Unconscionability focused on the impact of the uncorrected error, not on whether the argument had been raised in the adjudication.

Construction analysis: This combined adjudication enforcement and Part 8 claim considered various issues arising out of an adjudicator’s decision. The contractor, RBH, had applied for payment of c.£663k, and had been successful in an adjudication on a ‘smash and grab’ basis. The employer successfully resisted summary enforcement on the basis that it had an arguable case that it was a residential occupier, within the meaning of section 106 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996)—believed to be the first reported instance in which this defence to summary judgment has succeeded. The employer had also issued a Part 8 claim and successfully persuaded the court that its ‘Notice of intention to withhold payment’ was a valid payless notice. Finally, the court made obiter comments on the effect of its decision on the adjudicator’s decision on his fees. Written by Oli Worth, partner at Archor LLP and James Frampton, barrister at Keating Chambers.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) found that an adjudicator had been entitled to take the view that the defendant’s request for disclosure was ‘fanciful’, and that his approach to the disclosure issue did not indicate that he had wrongly predetermined the dispute against the defendant. The court therefore rejected the defendant’s argument that the adjudicator had breached the rules of natural justice.

This is a discount rate used in valuations, which looks at free cashflows less the cost of equity.

If a company’s earnings figures are distorted either positively or negatively by exceptional one-off occurrences in the year, its directors can choose to clarify the performance by releasing adjusted earnings. In other words, earnings with the exceptional items stripped out which they believe are more representative of its underlying performance.

The point in time specified in a contract when amounts are recalculated or apportioned between parties, so that economic risk and benefit shift in line with the deal. The term is descriptive rather than statutory: its precise effect depends on the agreement’s definition and drafting, and it is not generally fixed by legislation or case law.In property transactions, the adjustment date is the date from which outgoings and income (for example, rent, service charge, insurance, utilities and local taxes/rates) are apportioned between seller and buyer. Usage is broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland, though terminology varies: in Scotland “adjustment date” commonly coincides with the date of entry; in England & Wales and Northern Ireland it is often the completion or apportionment date; in Ireland it is usually the closing or apportionment date.In corporate/M&A documentation, the adjustment date often anchors completion accounts or price adjustments (for example, net debt and working capital measured as at that date), and should be distinguished from any locked-box date.Practically, the adjustment date should align with the intended economic transfer, be clearly defined, and be supported by robust apportionment and evidence provisions to reduce completion and post-completion disputes.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: this case considers the successful appeal to a sanctioned restructuring plan. A restructuring plan was proposed by a German property group to permit its controlled wind down (the ‘Plan’). The sanction hearing involved the first fully contested valuation challenge under the plan jurisdiction and required the exercise of the cross-class cram down power afforded by Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). The Court of Appeal overturned the sanction of the Plan, a decision primarily based on the failure of the Plan to accord with the pari passu principle of distribution that would have been applicable in the relevant alternative to the Plan of a formal insolvency. Written by Imogen Beltrami, barrister at South Square Chambers.

A supporting or corroborative piece of evidence.

Arbitration conducted with the assistance of an arbitral institution, trade association or other body. Services provided in administered arbitration include the: appointment of the tribunal, monitoring the progress of the arbitration, scrutiny of arbitral awards, managing funds and tribunal fee payments, and determining any challenges to the tribunal.

Background to the regulated activities relating to benchmarks Benchmarks are vital to the pricing of numerous financial instruments and commercial and non-commercial contracts. Following reports of the manipulation of various benchmarks, such as  London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), there were widespread concerns as to the integrity of benchmarks generally.Following numerous concerns about the way LIBOR was functioning, in 2009 the Financial Services Authority (FSA), along with other overseas regulators, started to investigate a number of institutions for alleged misconduct relating to LIBOR, the Euro Inter-Bank Offered Rate (EURIBOR) and other benchmarks. As part of its response to these investigations, in July 2012, the UK Government established an independent review into the setting and usage of LIBOR. The review was led by Martin Wheatley, then managing director of the FSA and former CEO of the FSA’s successor, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The Wheatley Review identified a number of failings in the production and oversight of the process of determining LIBOR, which at the time was administered by the British Bankers' Association (BBA) and self-regulated by the BBA and contributing