好色先生TV

The same thing always happens at 10 past three in the afternoon on the third day of an adjudication. An email pings up, and it says: 鈥淒ear Mr Bingham, we the respondent think you should sling your hook. There is no right for the referring party to bring an adjudication. Therefore, you have no jurisdiction to be the adjudicator. Therefore, be a good boy and clear off.鈥� And then follow all the neatly argued reasons why the adjudication can鈥檛 run 鈥� there鈥檚 no construction contract, there鈥檚 no dispute, there鈥檚 nothing in writing, the notice of adjudication was written on pink paper, instead of blue 鈥� this process will cost the respondent about two grand.

The referring party will then get uppity and submit a 鈥渞eply submission鈥� that insists the adjudicator pay no attention. That costs the claimant two grand. And, lo, there will be another reply, and another about the actual dispute. And then the adjudicator will write a mini-award saying why they should stay or go. The final bill for all this might be five grand.

I confess I enjoy these 10-past-three episodes. You get some ingenious arguments 鈥� some clever ones, some daft ones, some try-ons 鈥� just to see if the adjudicator is half-baked. And sometimes they work. Mind you, there is one helluva test I sometimes throw at the respondent: 鈥淧resumably, Mr Respondent, you are so convinced about there being no right to adjudicate that you will elect not to take part.鈥� Reply: 鈥淗mm 鈥� well, er, we will take part, but only under a flag of protest.鈥� So we all spend a whole lot of money explaining these jurisdiction arguments and it makes the world go round. It鈥檚 a sort of warm-up routine.

In the recent case of GPS Marine vs Ringway Infrastructure, there is a reminder of a neat device that saves cost, time and hassle. The respondent need not go to all the nuisance of sending in a 10-past-three challenge. Instead, they can shout 鈥淪upercalifragilisticexpialidocious鈥�, or 鈥淚 hereby generally reserve my right to claim there is no right to adjudicate鈥�. Then he can press on with the adjudication.

Well now, I reckon that costs them about 10 bob. And by the way, he doesn鈥檛 get on anyone鈥檚 nerves with such a one liner. In truth, he is reserving his position. If he loses at the end of the game he has the chance to scrabble around for reasons why he need never have taken part in the first place. He can wait for the result, then raise a jurisdiction challenge.

What happened in the case was that GPS brought an adjudication and won. Ringway鈥檚 defence was that the account being disputed was not a dispute at all, and that the final account had been long since agreed. That鈥檚 a 10-past-three argument, because no dispute means no right to adjudicate. But Ringway didn鈥檛 run it on day three. In fact, it didn鈥檛 run it as a jurisdiction argument at all. Instead, it was 鈥渏ust鈥� a defence. What it did include in its argument was that throwaway line mentioned earlier, which is known as a 鈥済eneral reservation鈥�. The no dispute/compromised account argument lost. The adjudicator decided there was no compromise. So Ringway was to pay money to GPS.

But it wouldn鈥檛. Ringway argued that the adjudicator鈥檚 decision was not binding because they had no jurisdiction for the reason that there was no dispute, therefore no right to adjudicate. Dear me, said GPS, you didn鈥檛 run that in the adjudication as a jurisdictional argument, so it鈥檚 all too late. Wrong, said the court. A general reservation is good enough. You can run a jurisdiction point after you lose, provided you generally reserve your right and shout: 鈥淪upercalifrag 鈥︹��

Well, that鈥檚 jolly unsporting, if you ask me. My 10-past-three-on-day-three fun is under threat. I will be deprived of intellectually stimulating, fun arguments, to say nothing of the fee. Is it really the case that all you have to do is spend 10 bob 鈥済enerally reserving your rights?鈥� Looks like it 鈥� until someone tries it again and comes a cropper 鈥�