Enforcement of Adjudicators Decisions Flashcards
What is the objective test for bias in the context of adjudication proceedings?
Answer: The objective test for bias asks whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there is a real possibility that the adjudicator was biased.
In which case was it held that an adjudicator’s involvement in related cases did not necessarily create bias?
Answer: The Edinburgh Schools Partnership Ltd v Galliford Try Construction
What is the difference between bias and impartiality?
Answer: Bias refers to an attitude of mind preventing objective determination of issues, while impartiality is the ability to approach the case objectively, without any personal interest or preference towards any party.
In which case did the court find that an adjudicator who had heard earlier adjudications “up the line” lacked impartiality?
Answer: Pring v C J Hafner
What principle was emphasized by the court in Carillion Construction v Devonport Royal Dockyard?
Answer: The importance of procedural fairness in adjudication, stating that a breach of natural justice could render an adjudicator’s decision unenforceable.
In which case did the court uphold the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision, finding no material breach of natural justice regarding impartiality?
Answer: Costain v Strathclyde Builders
According to the case of Primus v Pompey Centre, what action by an adjudicator can constitute a material breach of natural justice?
Answer: An adjudicator attempting to fill gaps in a case without canvassing the parties, and basing a significant element of their decision on a document which both parties had asked them to ignore.
In which case did the court hold that an adjudicator’s decision was unenforceable due to a breach of natural justice, as they relied on a test that neither party had submitted?
Answer: Balfour Beatty Construction v London Borough of Lambeth
In the context of adjudication, which case defined bias as an attitude of mind preventing objective determination of issues?
Answer: Director of Fair-Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain
What did the court hold in Woods Hardwick v Chiltern Air Conditioning regarding the adjudicator’s breach of the Scheme?
Answer: The adjudicator breached para. 17 of the Scheme by obtaining material from one party that was “highly material” but failing to disclose it for comment to the other party, thus lacking the “perception of impartiality”.
In the case of Bell Building Projects v Arnold Clark, how did the court address the criticism that the adjudicator left certain matters until the last minute?
Answer: The court held that this did not amount to a breach of natural justice or procedural fairness, recognizing the tight timeframe in adjudication processes and concluding that the adjudicator had given both parties adequate opportunity to present their cases.
What is the court’s general approach to challenges to the enforcement of adjudicators’ decisions based on bias, impartiality, or procedural fairness?
Answer: The courts closely scrutinize these challenges and will set aside or refuse to enforce a decision if there is sufficient evidence of actual or apparent bias, a lack of impartiality, or a breach of procedural fairness. However, strong evidence is required to invalidate an adjudicator’s decision, and the courts will enforce decisions if the adjudicator has acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
In which case was it held that a fair-minded observer would conclude that a deliberate decision by the adjudicator to not disclose to one party a unilateral conversation with another gives rise to a real possibility of bias?
Answer: Paice and Springall v. MJ Harding
In the case of Pring v C J Hafner, why did the court consider the adjudicator’s impartiality to be compromised?
Answer: The adjudicator had heard earlier adjudications “up the line,” meaning he had previously considered evidence not available to the parties in the new adjudication, creating a “very real risk” that he had carried forward judgments he had previously formed.
In The Edinburgh Schools Partnership Ltd v Galliford Try Construction, why did the court hold that the adjudicator’s involvement in related cases did not necessarily disqualify them or create bias?
Answer: The court held that if the issues in the related cases were different and had no overlap, the adjudicator’s involvement would not necessarily create bias or disqualify them, and the decision was enforced.
