Referring party meaning

This checklist flags matters often needing attention before a party refers a dispute to adjudication. It also points to detailed, in-depth guidance on the various topics and identifies the relevant provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996) where appropriate, as well. Legal matters Confirm there is a lawful basis to refer the dispute to adjudication, including whether it has crystallised and falls within the class of disputes that may properly be adjudicated. Entitlement to refer a dispute to adjudication The referring party must hold a legal entitlement to refer a dispute to adjudication. That entitlement may arise under statute, under the contract, or by an ad hoc agreement between the parties. Accordingly, consider the following: Is there a statutory right—does the parties’ contract meet the definition of ‘construction contract’ under HGCRA 1996, s 104 and is it not otherwise excluded from its scope? See Practice Note: What is a construction contract under the...

BC v BC [2025] EWFC 236 What are the practical implications of this case? The key takeaway for practitioners is to disregard paragraph 8 of the FRC Primary Principles, in particular its closing clause which states ‘and an assurance that offers were made on each side and an indication given’. Whether the FRC will issue a revised iteration of the Primary Principles to reflect Peel J’s ruling remains uncertain at this stage. Practitioners should likewise observe the effective bar on obliquely attributing fault for an unproductive pFDR by referring to a party having left the appointment after an indication was given, as such references amount to indirect blame. The ruling should, in turn, streamline the pFDR process and reduce the scope for satellite litigation that might otherwise follow, notably where no settlement is achieved. In essence, the only matters that should be disclosed are neutral particulars confirming that a pFDR has taken place, and nothing more. What was the background? The parties had taken part in...

AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd v UK Innovations Group Ltd and another [2024] EWHC 1727 (IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? Marketing of re-sale goods Sellers of second-hand goods should act carefully when promoting such items and when referring to the original seller’s brand name. Re-sellers should take measures to avoid suggesting any commercial association with the original trade mark proprietor, thereby limiting the scope for potential third party enforcement actions. References to the original brand on websites, and even on invoices, could be treated as part of the branding of the item being offered, rather than merely descriptive, innocuous marketing language. Joint tortfeasance As set out in Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed [2024] UKSC 17 (at para [137]), there are two distinct bases for accessory liability: (i) procuring an infringement; and (ii) assisting another to infringe pursuant to a common design. In either case, the individual must possess the requisite knowledge to be liable...

Construction Muzzy Ltd v Davis Construction (South East Ltd) [2025] EWHC 2258 (TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment refines the boundaries of well‑established principles relating to jurisdictional objections and natural justice challenges to adjudicators’ decisions, and it draws attention to a number of practical pointers for those involved in adjudication, emphasising several day‑to‑day practice points that merit careful consideration. Key takeaways include: ‘same dispute’ arguments: the restriction on referring the same (or materially the same) dispute to multiple adjudications should be applied with common sense in practice, and is unlikely to capture comparable disputes arising under distinct contracts or within different contractual frameworks unsolicited submissions: although an adjudicator is not invariably obliged to consider uninvited material provided by a party, it may nevertheless be entitled to take such material into account without offending the rules of natural justice. That can apply where, as here, an unsolicited submission responds to new or broadened arguments advanced by the other party... ...

The Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, updated on 1 June 2021 (the Swiss Rules), apply—unless the parties agree otherwise—to any arbitration begun on or after 1 June 2021 under an arbitration agreement referring either to the Swiss Rules or to the prior rules of chambers or organisations that joined the Swiss Rules or brought their proceedings within them. This Practice Note examines the appointment of the arbitral tribunal under the Swiss Rules. The provisions regulating constitution of the tribunal are, for the most part, consistent with those in most other widely used arbitration rules, though there are a handful of particularities. For guidance on the 2012 Swiss Rules, see: Swiss Rules arbitration—overview. This note highlights similarities and specific features when constituting tribunals, within the context of these Swiss Rules and notes areas of difference. Number of arbitrators Under the Swiss Rules, the parties may decide the size of the arbitral tribunal, either within their arbitration clause or subsequently. While that choice rests with the parties, the Arbitration Court...

Prepared in collaboration with 4 Pump Court, this Practice Note condenses the choices open to a party aiming to stop enforcement of an adjudication decision, while also signposting grounds the court has dismissed or rejected. The courts adopt a pro-enforcement stance towards adjudication outcomes and, as set out below, the instances in which a decision will not be enforced (or a stay of execution will be ordered) are tightly constrained. Summary of grounds for resisting enforcement The court will refrain from enforcing an adjudicator’s decision, or grant a stay of execution, only in narrowly defined situations: the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction (see Practice Note: Grounds for a jurisdictional challenge in an adjudication) there was a serious or material breach of natural justice in the adjudication (see Practice Note: Breach of natural justice in adjudication) the referring party is insolvent and/or there is a risk of dissipation of the awarded sum (see Practice Note: Adjudication—resisting enforcement using a stay of execution) fraud occurred during...

The Financial Services Enforcement Database The Financial Services Enforcement Database brings together comprehensive details on substantive Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) Final Notices and, where obtainable, Decision Notices, covering 2014 onwards. The Database can be searched and refined by fields including rule/legislation breach, keyword, sector, date, financial penalty, facets of financial penalty analysis, outcomes such as redress and prohibition orders, and further actions like referrals to the Upper Tribunal. This Practice Note sets out the law and process for making a reference to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) following a disciplinary or non-disciplinary decision of the FCA or the PRA; including decisions on restrictions, financial penalties and prohibition orders under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000), and the FCA’s registration of cryptoasset firms under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/692 (MLRs). It addresses the Upper Tribunal’s role and scope of its powers when determining references in financial services matters....

[ NAME OF PROJECT ]: REFERENCE OF A DISPUTE TO THE DAAB UNDER CLAUSE 21.4 DAAB Reference No. DAAB Reference No. [ Number of reference ] | [ Date ] Referring Party [ Name of Party 1 ] [ Address ] [ Telephone/Fax No. ] [ Email address ] [ ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF THE REFERRING PARTY ] Responding Party [ Name of Party 2 ] [ Address ] [ Telephone/Fax No. ] [ Email address ] The DAAB [ Name of DAAB Chairperson ] — [ Address ] — [ Telephone/Fax No. ] — [ Email address ] [ Name of DAAB Member 2 ] — [ Address ] — [ Telephone/Fax No. ] — [ Email address ] [ Name of DAAB Member 3 ] — [ Address ] — [ Telephone/Fax No. ] — [ Email address ] ...

In respect of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, and in respect of an adjudication before [ Name of Adjudicator ] between [ Name of party 1 ], the Referring Party, and [ Name of party 2 ], the Responding Party Referral notice Introduction In accordance with the Notice of Adjudication dated [ date ], this document serves as the Referring Party’s Referral Notice. This Referral Notice is issued with a Bundle that contains a timeline of events alongside pertinent documents: 2.1 chronology of relevant events at tab [ insert ] 2.2 [ insert ] at tab [ insert ] 2.3 [ insert ] at tab [ insert ] The Parties 3 The Referring Party is [ Full Name of Party 1 ] ([ ‘Abbreviated Name of Party 1’ ]) of [ address ], and [ provides OR undertakes ] [ insert services/role Party 1 carries...

And in accordance with the [ insert [ ‘Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998’ OR relevant adjudication procedure chosen by the parties ] ] Between: [ Name of party 1 ] (the Referring Party) and [ Name of party 2 ] (the Responding Party) Introduction By virtue of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996), together with [ [ ‘the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998’ (‘the Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998’)’ OR the alternative adjudication procedure selected by the parties ] ], this document concerns the dispute set out below. The Parties and Addresses for Service The Referring Party is [ Full Name of Party 1 ] (‘[ Abbreviated Name of Party 1 ]’) of [ address ]. The Referring Party is [ set out brief description of the work it undertakes, including the relevant type of work for the present dispute ]. The Responding Party is [ Full Name...