An adjudicator can only deal with one dispute under one contract. In Enterprise v McFadden the adjudicator could not therefore deal with a claim to a net balance arising out of mutual dealings on four separate subcontracts (one of which was not even a construction contract) under Rule 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. Tripartite adjudication is not possible so the adjudication could not cope with a cross claim which would have involved joining assignors.

In the current economic climate, security for payment is key. Although banks have started to lend money again, they remain cautious and those construction firms with weak balance sheets remain at risk of insolvency. This article discusses five pitfalls in the context of some relevant case-law and devices to protect against these.

It wasn't so long ago that retention of title (RoT) clauses took somewhat of a backseat. Afterall, deciding who owned what on a construction site given the number of parties involved in any one project was not an easy task. However, given current market conditions and the increase of buyer insolvency, many suppliers are turning their attention back to the clause in an attempt to claw back their goods.

In 2009, almost 3000 construction firms entered into some form of insolvency procedure, leaving many parties owed money by insolvent firms. These debts could be pursued against the third party's insurer under the Third Parties (Rights) Against Insurers Act 1930. However, debt recovery will be made quicker, cheaper and easier once the Third Parties (Rights) Against Insurers Act 2010 is commenced by Parliament.

Armed with an adjudicator’s decision and a TCC enforcement judgment, can a party issue a statutory demand for payment, even if the other party has a genuine and substantial cross claim against the sum awarded? No, said Judge Stephen Davies in Shaw v MFP. Neither the Construction Act nor the Scheme was intended to displace the position under the Insolvency Rules, which give the court discretion to set aside a statutory demand if the debtor appears to have a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand which equals or exceeds the debt in the statutory demand.

In times of economic uncertainty, when the prospect of insolvency is prevalent, contracting parties need, more than ever, to be aware of issues that could have an unanticipated effect on their position. The existence of Retention of Title (RoT) clauses in contracts, particularly in the construction context, and the effect of the relevant legislation, need to be considered carefully.

Many of us in the construction industry seem to be hearing the same old bed time story over and over again: A instructs B to do the work; B does the work; A does not pay B; for months the parties dispute the level of payment due; B becomes fed up waiting for payment and takes steps to wind up A.

Is this the most appropriate way to deal with a disputed debt?

In William Hare Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd, the judgment of which can be accessed here, the consequences of an anachronistic piece of contract drafting cost the losing party over £1 million. The issue here was whether or not the contractor under a building sub-contract could successfully pass the risk of the employer’s insolvency onto its sub-contractor by means of what is commonly known as a “pay when paid” clause.

In the case of William Hare Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2009] EWHC 1603 (TCC) (25 June 2009), the court declined to incorporate amendments made to an Act before the contract was signed which were not specifically referred to in the contract.

The facts

The provision of bonds by contractors as security has assumed renewed importance as a means of protecting employers, given the rising trend of contractor insolvencies.