UK: Natural Justice in Adjudication: CIB v Birse

Last Updated: 20 July 2005
Article by Adam Constable, MA

This article is based on a paper given by the author to the Arbitration Club Law Courts Braneh Seminar on 11 January 2005.


The theme of this paper is the judgement of HH Judge Toulmin in the Technology and Construction Court in CIB Properties Ltd v Birse Construction [2005] BLR 173. Before turning to the facts of CIB v Birse, it would be instructive to recall the words of Lord Ackner in the House of Lords during the debate on what is now the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCR Act) when he said:

"Adjudication is a highly satisfactory process. It comes under the rubric of "pay now argue later" which is a sensible way of dealing expeditiously and relatively inexpensively with dispute which might hold up completion of important contracts."

CIB v Birse was one of the more extraordinary examples of adjudications and as far removed from the intention behind the HBCR Act as one might get.

The Hearings

In the case, CIB’s costs of two adjudications, one relatively short and the other lasting 100 days by agreement of the parties, amounted to £973,732.41 and Birse’s costs amounted to £1,161,341 ex VAT. The parties were represented by Messrs Ramsey QC and Darling QC of Keating Chambers respectively. Mr. Uff QC of Keating Chambers was the adjudicator for the 100 day adjudication and the award ran into well over 100 pages. Counsel instructed in the shorter, first, adjudication, were Mr. Fernyhough QC of Keating Chambers and Mr. Coulson QC formerly of Keating Chambers (now HHJ Coulson). The adjudication was held in the arbitration suite at Keating Chambers.

The claim was from some £14m, and an award of over £2m was made by Mr. Uff QC. There was a hearing in front of HHJ Toulmin QC on 19th October 2004 raising a number of issues.

The key issue for the purpose of this paper is that Birse argued that the size and complexity of the dispute meant that it could not be resolved fairly by adjudication.

The Judge’s Analysis

The starting point for the analysis of HHJ Toulmin QC was section 108 of the HGCR Act.

Section 1 gives a party a right to refer a dispute or difference adjudication.

Section 2 requires the Adjudicator to reach a decision provided the conditions in the clause could be met.

This meant that the Adjudicator must be able to discharge his duty to reach a decision impartially and fairly within the time limit stipulated in section 2(c) and (d).

As is well known, the time limit is 28 days, extended by 14 days with consent of the referring party or (implicitly) such other time as may be agreed.

The Judge endorsed the approach of John Uff, who in turn had met the submissions of Birse by reference to the judgment of Judge Wilcox in London & Amsterdam v Watermans Partnership [2004] 94 Con LR 154, in which he said:

"This scheme does not envisage that there should be a provisional resolution of a dispute by an Adjudicator at all costs. That would be far greater an injustice than that which the HCGR Act was enacted to remedy".

Mr. Uff QC set himself tests which could be transposed into questions which an adjudicator must be able to answer in the affirmative before he is capable of giving a decision compliant with the requirements of natural justice.

  1. Have I sufficiently appreciated the nature of each issue referred to me so that I can give a decision on that issue?
  2. Have I understood the case of each party in relation to the principal issues?
  3. In relation to quantum, am I able to do substantial justice between the parties and arrive at an overall figure which reflects the merits of the case as I find them?

The conclusion of John Uff was that if he had not been able to satisfy these conditions, he would not have reached a decision in the Adjudication on some or all of the issues referred to him.

In the event, Birse had agreed to a number of extensions throughout the adjudication amounting to 100 days. In the time period in fact allowed, and on the basis of the hearing as it proceeded and the written submissions, Mr. Uff considered that he could answer the questions in the affirmative and therefore decided the matters before him.

The crucial finding of the judge was that a respondent is not bound to agree to any extensions of time, even if the refusal renders the task of the adjudicator impossible in relation to the dispute in the form in which it is referred to him.

The Current Position

Firstly, in the greater scheme of Adjudication, this decision is of little import. The vast majority of adjudications that go on day by day and week by week in the industry are not of sufficient complexity or value for this to be relevant.

However, a number of interesting points arise from it:

  1. It seems clear that it is possible that an adjudicator can be in breach of natural justice by attempting to consider matters that are too complex or numerous properly to be decided within the period of time prescribed. In theory, therefore, a CIB V Birse plea might work.
  2. It seems to me that the test must be an objective one rather than a subjective one. Just because the adjudicator in fact asks the relevant questions and answers in the affirmative does not mean that it is impossible for the Court to say otherwise;
  3. however, the view of the adjudicator is likely to hold considerable weight. When an adjudicator of the stature of Mr. Uff QC says he has been able to understand and evaluate the respective cases in the time allowed, one would have thought the Court would be slow to contradict him;
  4. In the absence of a demonstrable and significant error in the award itself, a Court is unlikely to say that an adjudicator had not been able to give the matter sufficient time. And as we have seen recently, in the Amec Capital Projects Ltd v Whitefriars City Estate Ltd [2004] 96 Con LR 142, the Court of Appeal is very reluctant to find any breaches of natural justice in the rough and tumble of adjudication. Where an adjudicator says he considered whether he could deal with it, it seems likely that the Court, at least an appellate court will agree.
  5. Faced with an extremely large, complex dispute, the options are either:
    1. To seek such extensions to the timetable as are considered necessary to a fair determination of the issues (i.e. say at the outset that 100 days is required). If the time is not given, then there is a better opportunity to be able to say that the lack of time gives rise to natural justice issues.
    2. One of the problems Birse complained of was the piecemeal nature of the extensions to the adjudication period. If at the outset everyone knew it was to be 100 days, the procedure could have been structured accordingly, but it simply evolved that way. One way of avoiding these difficulties would be to agree at the outset a realistic period.

    3. Alternatively, the best tactic for the respondent may be to restrict the time allowed to the adjudicator. It is interesting to speculate whether Mr. Uff would have been able to answer the questions in the same way if he had been given just 42 days to reach his decision rather than 100.
    4. This probably stands the greatest chance of providing an argument that there has been a breach of natural justice; however it is obviously risky in that:

      1. It is more likely than not that the adjudicator will go ahead anyway;
      2. Restricting the time, necessarily prejudices the ability to answer fully a case at a crucial time.
      3. It seems probable that a court would in fact be slow to say that a case was un-adjudicatable.


  6. Justice comes in 3 dimensions:
    1. Truth. The modern requirement for proportionality demands that the system does not require the truth at all costs.
    2. Cost. The more money spent, the closer to the truth the parties are likely to get. However, the more it costs, the more phyrric any victory may be once the truth is established.
    3. Time. The longer the time spent, the closer to the truth the parties are likely to get; however, the longer the delay in getting to the truth, the more prejudice suffered by those seeking it.

  7. Because of the non-binding nature of adjudication, courts are happy that, in the short term at least, truth is potentially sacrificed on the altar of cost and time.
  8. However;
    1. The defendant has no choice in adjudication
    2. The defendant does not have its cost paid if it succeeds
    3. The procedure is not binding, so particularly in enormous disputes where adjudication is obviously only the first round of the contest, the parties are in fact no further on.

  9. In CIB v Birse the claimant got £2 million out of £14 million. £2 million is presumably better than nothing. Without knowing the merits of the underlying case it is impossible to say whether this is £2 million more than they should have got or £12 million less.
  10. The question remains whether the claimant might have got more, had a larger more structured procedure been put in place.

  11. In looking forward, it can be said that whilst a possible avenue for unfairness has been identified, which is "flavour of the month" it may burn itself out. It is not certain that case will arise where, the adjudicator says he has answered the questions affirmatively, the court disagrees.
  12. In seeking ways to deal with the very largest adjudications, one possibility would be to make adjudications after the end of the contract and/or in relation to a certain sum of money subject to a different set of rules.
  13. Two possible rule changes are also worth considering;
    1. The requirement of a payment into court and
    2. Costs following the event.

The effect just might be to make the parties think again before embarking on such a course of action.

The articles and papers published by Keating Chambers are for the purpose of raising general awareness of issues and stimulating discussion. The contents must not be relied upon or applied in any given situation. There is no substitute for taking appropriate professional advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.