By Rebecca Roberts
TECHNICALLY complex, time-consuming and often expensive, technology disputes are in desperate need of an overhaul. This is what educational charity, Society for Computers and Law (SCL), has set to deliver by way of its new adjudication procedure, which launched in October. Currently only available in England and Wales, it’s likely the scheme will be rolled out in Scotland.
The new fast-track adjudication procedure offers tech companies a more affordable way to resolve disputes by using an adjudicator with expert tech knowledge to determine the dispute within three months. This should be particularly attractive to technology businesses, where contract disputes can severely disrupt time-sensitive projects or result in them falling apart altogether.
The new scheme was partly influenced by the success of the statutory adjudication procedure introduced for UK construction disputes in the 90s. This overhauled expensive and long-running litigations which were causing serious cash-flow problems for construction projects.
The construction adjudication regime followed a revolutionary report published by Sir Michael Latham in 1994, which recommended a major culture shift in the UK construction industry. Sir Michael urged contractors and subcontractors to stop playing the ‘blame’ game and instead start working collaboratively for the benefit of the project. He recommended that adjudication should be the primary route for resolving disputes, with recourse to litigation only available as a last resort. The statutory adjudication regime which followed gave parties a right to adjudicate which could not be contracted out of and dictated that the adjudicator’s decision must be made within 28 days from referral. The scheme also introduced a policy of “pay first, argue later”, where the unsuccessful party immediately pays any sums which the adjudicator deems due, pending any appeal. This sought to ensure that construction projects were no longer stymied by a halt in funding and progress as a result of disputes.
The SCL had similar ambitions when developing the fast-track procedure for technology disputes and the parallels between this procedure and the construction regime are clear. There is a fixed period within which the adjudicator must reach its decision (albeit this is longer than the 28 days for construction disputes) and the adjudicator’s decision is immediately enforceable, subject a right to appeal within six months, allowing the successful business instant access to cash in cases of payment disputes. There is also a general obligation on the parties to act in “good faith”, echoing the collaborative approach lauded by Sir Michael.
However, unlike construction adjudication, the SCL’s procedure has no statutory footing. Tech businesses can elect to use the process either by specifying this in their contract or by referring themselves to the SCL once a dispute arises.
And what about costs? They will likely be significantly lower than for litigation, as a result of a cap on adjudicators’ fees and in the anticipation that adjudicators will normally be able to reach a decision without the need for hearings. The condensed procedure should reduce parties’ legal bills too.
Given that the SCL’s fast-track adjudication scheme is voluntary, its success will depend on how well the technology sector embraces the new procedure. The SCL will hope that the technology industry’s reputation as a community of innovators and “early adopters will help drive these changes forward, to the ultimate goal of achieving a more effective relationship between technology and the law.
Rebecca Roberts is a solicitor in DLA Piper’s Litigation and Regulatory practice, based in Scotland.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here