As most of you who attended the Adjudication Conference in November 2017 may recall, TECSA proposed to update and revise:
- The Adjudication Service Document
- The Adjudication Rules
- The Adjudicator Nomination process
The rationale being to address two main areas which had been the subject of indirect judicial interest over the last couple of years:
- Conflicts of interest and apparent bias;
- The need for still greater transparency / clarity in adjudication appointments
In addition, TECSA proposed:
Increase fees for nominations and daily maxima for Adjudicator fees (which it will still do)
Revise the grievance procedure for adjudicators (which it will still do)
The changes were to include (1) a requirement for the referring party to declare all adjudicators with potential interests on the nomination form; (2) an option for the referring party to identify those individuals it considers are not suitable to act; and (3) add a requirement for the nominated adjudicator to give an updated undertaking and make a declaration as to conflicts of interests or other involvements, relationships or interests.
On account of the extensive positive feedback at the Conference and correspondence subsequently, to the effect the current arrangements work well, are respected and in the vernacular “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, TECSA’s Adjudication Sub-Committee has decided that the review and revisions will be far less ambitious. We aim to have a revision out to you all in February 2018.
Watch this space.