The Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 96) part II, as amended by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, altered fundamentally the resolution of construction disputes. The legislation is called the HGCRA 96 as amended from here on. It made it easier and less costly to challenge the other party where a dispute had arisen. In many instances, the dispute arises when one party makes an application for payment and the other disputes the value of the work carried out. Among the recommendations of the Latham Report was that tenders should be evaluated on quality and price and so limit arguments about it. A trawl through the public procurement cases show that evaluating criteria can be a double-edged sword. The nature of disputes Disputes arise during a construction project for many reasons. These include whether the parties have a contract, the standard of workmanship, the quality of materials, applications for extensions of time not being granted, claims for direct loss and/or expense being rejected, contractor delay and subsequent deduction of liquidated damages (LD), applications for payment and sometimes the meaning of contractual terms. The variety and scope of disputes in adjudication is much wider as the statutory definition of a construction contract includes professional contracts for services. Despite this observation, disputes are primarily triggered by applications for payment or a lack of payment.
Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book
Please log in to get access to this content
To get access to this content you need the following product:
- Methods of Dispute Resolution
- Macmillan Education UK
- Sequence number
- Chapter number