The recent case of Khurana v. Webster Construction Limited
[2015] EWHC 758 (TCC) highlights the need for care when agreeing to
be "bound" by an adjudicator's award. Adjudication is
widely used in the construction industry to resolve disputes. It
has various advantages over court proceedings, in particular speed
and cost. One potential disadvantage is that an adjudication award
is not technically final and binding, although it should be said
that in most cases the parties do accept the decision.
However, that is not always the case. An adjudicator's
decision is often described as being "temporarily
binding", meaning that the award stands until the whole case
is finally settled, or determined by legal proceedings, whether in
court or by way of arbitration. In other words, neither party will
be precluded from running the dispute which is submitted to the
adjudicator again afresh, regardless of the existence of his
decision. This is enshrined in statute by s. 108 of the
