law


Sssshhh! Adjudication schemes – the legal industry’s best kept secret


Nick Hallchurch, partner in the dispute resolution team, blows its cover believing the scheme could transform the landscape for making negligence claims


Professional negligence claims can cost a huge amount to both parties involved. Typically most people believe that the only option available to them when mediation has not been successful is litigation through the courts, which can take up to two years to conclude and – because of the time and complexity of issues – costs can rocket.


However, a less well known option – where the courts could be avoided thereby reducing costs by up to 75% and having a binding decision within only 56 days – is the adjudication scheme.


What is it?


This voluntary scheme enables parties in a professional negligence dispute to obtain a ruling from an independent adjudicator that would be adhered to by both parties (if this was agreed at the beginning). Once parties agreed to the scheme, they were bound to its rules.


It recently received a makeover whereby it doesn’t just have to focus on claims against your solicitor. It now can be used in a dispute against any non-medical professional (such as accountants, surveyors, valuers, insurance brokers and pension and financial advisers) and there is no longer any cap on the amount under contention.


The scheme can begin at any point in the dispute and both parties can retain the authority to determine both the extent of the adjudicator’s role and whether his or her ruling will be binding.


The costs of the adjudicator are graded so that they reflect the complexity and cost of the claim. Both parties are liable to pay the adjudicator’s costs which will remain within a very modest limit,


What’s the alternative?


It’s important to note that adjudication may not be suitable for all disputes, such as those where complex expert evidence is required.


Currently there are no specific sanctions for a party that unreasonably refuses to engage in adjudication and chooses litigation through the courts instead. However, this point may be considered by the judiciary in due course.


The dispute resolution team has substantial experience in negligence claims across a range of industry sectors and have recovered six- figure sums for damages.


It’s also useful in disputes where the involvement of an experienced adjudicator might help if a crucial technical point has become a barrier to reaching a settlement. It’s also worth noting that adjudicators are experts in their field with a wealth of experience so will be able to get to the crux of an issue quickly.


Adjudication schemes are worth considering as they are designed to make claims affordable; they can provide cost certainty (lawyers can offer fixed fees) and they’re quick, so owners can get on with running their business and people can get on with their lives.


For further information and advice, contact Nick Hallchurch:


01753 279035 nick.hallchurch@bpcollins.co.uk


THE BUSINESS MAGAZINE – THAMES VALLEY – NOVEMBER 2016 businessmag.co.uk 39


and the adjudicator can have the authority to require the losing party to pay the costs.


When is it useful?


Did your accountant give you poor tax advice and it has cost you money? Or did your solicitor miss the deadline to renew the lease of your commercial premises causing you a sizeable loss of business? Then the adjudication scheme could be an option for you.


It is also likely to be more appealing to a party, if they have a claim with good prospects of winning on liability but where the likely damages may make it uneconomical if they pursue the claim to trial. Many claims previously not considered worth the risk of litigation may now be seen as worth pushing forward into adjudication.


Moreover, there is a risk of reputational damage by going through court as all decisions by the judge will be made public, whereas all information will remain entirely confidential in a adjudication scheme if both parties agree to it.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52