Can the complexity or volume of a dispute make adjudication procedurally unfair?
Complexity does not itself make a dispute unsuitable for adjudication or render the decision unenforceable. The question is whether the procedure allowed the adjudicator to decide fairly and each party to address the material case within the time actually available.
There is no complexity threshold; prove an actual material inability to present or answer the case
Large claims, extensive variation schedules and detailed delay analyses can be adjudicated. The adjudicator should assess at appointment whether a fair decision is possible, seek any justified extension, narrow issues, identify the required evidence and disclose any sampling or evaluative method. A party resisting enforcement must do more than count files or complain about the 28-day period. It should identify the material issue it could not answer, the procedural request made, the response received and the effect on the decision. Pre-referral exchanges and prior knowledge of the claim may show that the response period was longer in substance.
| Issue | Position |
|---|---|
| Large claim or many documents | Not enough by itself |
| Agreed extension | Supports workable procedure |
| Known claim before referral | Relevant to response opportunity |
| Undisclosed sampling or new method | Potential fairness issue |
| Specific material case unanswered | Requires evidence of resulting unfairness |
The rest of this solution is for members
Fifty of the two hundred contractual solutions are free to read. This is one of the remaining hundred and fifty, which Premium and Pro carry.
See what Premium includesAlready a member? Sign in