UK: Adjudication Heads East

Last Updated: 15 December 2014
Article by Laura Coates

Statutory adjudication has been a great success in the UK, where it was first introduced. Other jurisdictions are following the UK lead and introducing more flexibility to the process.

Over the course of the last 16 years, the UK construction industry has become increasingly familiar with statutory adjudication, introduced as part of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996) in 1998. Initially designed to abolish bad payment practices in the industry and improve cash flow, adjudication was also intended to deal with works being suspended for long periods of time whilst lengthy disputes were resolved. With the introduction of adjudication, it has become possible to obtain a decision in just 28 days, and if court enforcement is required, this generally takes place within a further 14 days.

To that extent, adjudication has been transformative in allowing parties who have not been paid to claim what they are owed in a relatively short period, and to that degree can be considered a success. Whilst initially slow to gain acceptance in the UK, once the courts demonstrated that they would robustly enforce adjudication decisions, adjudication developed a momentum of its own. Indeed, it could be argued that adjudication has been almost too successful in the UK, and at times has been both widely used and abused, with parties using it to refer all kinds of disputes to adjudication, including those that are totally unsuited to the fast-track procedure.

Following legislative amendments in 2011 (as contained in Pt 8 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act), statutory adjudication now applies to oral contracts as well as written ones. Court decisions have also helped to shape the adjudication procedure as it now stands, contributing to the recent amendments to the primary legislation such as incorporating a slip rule to allow an adjudicator to correct a clerical or typographical error. Whilst parties have been inventive in finding ways to resist enforcement, it is now fairly clear that there are only two potential options for challenging enforcement in the UK, these being (i) where the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to make the decision, and (ii) where there has been a serious breach of the rules of natural justice.

Just as the use of adjudication has spread across the UK construction industry, it has successfully expanded across the globe, with Hong Kong being the latest jurisdiction to introduce security of payment for its construction industry through statutory adjudication, following in the footsteps of Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore. New South Wales was the first state in Australia to take this step, with the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act of 1999, followed by legislation in Victoria (2002), Queensland (2004) and Western Australia (2004), whilst New Zealand introduced the Construction Contracts Act in 2002. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the use of fundamentally different models in Eastern and Western Australia has now led for calls for a new harmonised national scheme.

In 2005 Singapore introduced the Building and Construction Security of Payment Act. The general aim behind all the legislation was, as in the UK, to ensure that money flows down the contracting chain by prohibiting 'pay if paid' or 'pay when paid' clauses in construction contracts.

Since the late 1990s, stakeholders in the Hong Kong construction industry have undertaken a critical review of the practices and culture of the industry and considered routes for reform. Indeed, in April 2002, the Construction Industry Review Committee (CIRC) was appointed to comprehensively review the state of the industry and to recommend measures for improvement, and reported that 'further consideration should be given to the merits of, and the need for, enacting security of payment legislation having regard to local circumstances and in the light of overseas experience.'

In the decade that followed the CIRC Report it was recognised that security of payment was fundamental to developing a healthy, professional and competitive construction industry, and the long-awaited security of payment legislation is expected to commence its public consultation shortly (the tentative consultation period has been identified as April to June 2015, with the legislation expected to come into effect as early as 2016).

The scope

In terms of its scope, the proposed legislation will apply to construction activities carried out in Hong Kong (main contracts, sub-contracts, consultants and suppliers), as well as those construction activities performed outside Hong Kong provided that the work products are finally delivered to, and incorporated into, a project in Hong Kong. As is now the case in the UK, the proposed legislation will apply to construction activities regardless of whether the contract was made orally or in writing. Conditional payment provisions (eg 'pay if paid' or 'pay when paid') will be prohibited and have no effect if included in a contract. Although wide in scope, it will exclude construction contracts with residential occupiers for a value of less than HKD5 million, as well as employment, insurance, guarantee and investment contracts.

Whilst parties to an applicable contract will be free to agree when and how frequently claims for progress payments can be made, how the progress payments are to be calculated, and when the progress payments are to be made, the agreed due dates cannot exceed 60 days for interim payments and 120 days for final payment. Where parties do not expressly agree any of these matters, default provisions will apply to the contract. Under the proposed legislation, the claiming party would be entitled to adjudicate a claim for a progress payment even without having to fulfil a condition precedent to their contractual entitlement to the claim.

It is intended that the contractor whose payment claim has been disputed or ignored will have the right to commence statutory adjudication, with the legislation setting a strict time limit within which to make an application for statutory adjudication. The parties may appoint an adjudicator after the dispute to be adjudicated has arisen. If there is no agreement, the nominating body named in the parties' contract will appoint by nomination an adjudicator, otherwise the adjudicator will be appointed by nomination from the HKIAC Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre. However appointed, the appointment must take place within five working days of commencement of the adjudication.

Time frames

In terms of time frames once adjudication has commenced, it is proposed that the responding party will have 20 days to serve its response from the date of receipt of the claimant's submissions, although this time period may be shortened or extended by the adjudicator without the parties' consent. The adjudicator will have 20 working days from the date of receiving the respondent's response to make his decision, but this period may be extended up to 55 working days from the date the adjudicator was appointed without the parties' consent, or extended further with both parties' consent.

It is anticipated that 55 working days will become the usual period for disputes of greater size or complexity, with knock-on implications in terms of the cost of the adjudication. Under the proposed legislation, each party will bear its own costs of the adjudication, although the adjudicator will have the power to determine which party pays the adjudicator's fees. It is therefore possible that the losing party will face a significant liability in relation to fees.

If the losing party fails or refuses to comply with the decision of the adjudicator, the adjudicator's decision can be registered as a court judgment and enforced by the courts accordingly. In terms of grounds on which to challenge a decision, these are limited to procedural grounds of unfairness, a failure by the adjudicator to act independently and impartially, or the adjudicator acting without or outside his jurisdiction (not dissimilar from the grounds for challenging the decision of an adjudicator in the UK). In that the adjudicator's decision is only provisionally binding, the parties to it are not prevented from commencing separate court or arbitration proceedings to seek a final determination of the dispute.

Following a decision of the adjudicator, the proposed legislation gives the contractor the right to suspend work for non-payment of sums that have been determined by the adjudicator as being due and payable, conditional on the contractor serving written notice of suspension on the employer and the site owner. As an alternative, the contractor may suspend part of its work or reduce the progress of its work, as a result of which the contractor will become entitled to additional time and reasonable costs for any delay and disruption caused by the suspension.

Security of payment

There are various ways in which the proposed legislation can be seen to mirror that of security of payment legislation in other jurisdictions. It limits adjudication to disputes involving claims for extensions of time, and delay and disruption cost, and also contains anti-ambush provisions (features of the Australian systems, lacking in the UK), providing the adjudicator with the power to disregard evidence or submissions that should have been provided beforehand, and encouraging parties to submit their submissions and supporting evidence as soon as possible to allow each to have a reasonable time to consider them.

In addressing the above, as well as providing the parties with the right to appoint their own adjudicator (by agreement) and permitting flexibility of time limits without the parties' consent, Hong Kong seems to have learnt lessons from the experiences of others.

In that the proposed legislation reflects some of the key provisions contained in the security of payment legislation in jurisdictions such as the UK, it seems inevitable that the process in Hong Kong will be open to the same criticisms as faced in other jurisdictions.

One of the main issues with adjudication is identified as being the quality of adjudicators, especially those with little 'real life' experience of construction disputes. To the extent that most adjudicators are appointed by a nominating body, the parties have little control over who is selected (unlike arbitration). Issues can arise when adjudicators without formal legal training are asked to grapple with interpreting complex contractual issues, and depending on which part of the industry the adjudicator comes from, they are open to claims of perceived or actual bias. Indeed, in the UK, the TCC judiciary have, on occasion, been openly critical of some of the adjudicators' decisions which they are obliged to enforce.

Extended time periods

The possibility of an extended time period for adjudication can also lead to the incurring of significant costs, and can mean that what was intended to be a quick and cheap process becomes increasingly drawn-out and expensive. Overall, the adjudication process is expected to have widespread consequences for the construction industry in Hong Kong, causing a major shift in the balance of power between contractors and employers, and replacing arbitration and litigation as the mechanisms of choice for resolving construction disputes.

As Hong Kong awaits the coming into effect of the proposed legislation, it is interesting to speculate which jurisdictions might next look to introduce some form of security of payment legislation to regulate their domestic construction industry. Whilst the continuing growth of the construction industry in the Middle East might suggest that it would be the next region to adopt adjudication for payment disputes, adjudication is not recognised as a form of dispute resolution in the underlying Civil Code of, for example, the UAE, and would not give rise to a binding award.

In that it would still be necessary to pursue a matter through arbitration or the local courts, and re-litigate the substance of the dispute, adjudication to some extent would only add another layer of bureaucracy and expense to a process that in any event would have to proceed to arbitration or the courts. Other common law jurisdictions, though, may yet adopt adjudication.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Goodman Derrick LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Goodman Derrick LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions