Adjudication and the ‘Residential Occupier Exclusion’: Time for a Rethink?

Accessing papers

If you are logged in as a member or a registered academic, you will see a link to download the paper for FREE. The link is just above the Add to Cart button.

If you wish to purchase the paper, you must be logged in first (click here to log in, or click here to register). You will then see the Add to Cart button. You may also have a choice of preferred format if both are available - PDF download costs £3 inc VAT, printed version costs £7.50 inc postage (no VAT). Choosing one or the other changes the price displayed.

When you are ready to check out, use the 'View basket' link in the top left of the website.

Philip Britton

May 2015

A paper based on the joint first prize entry in the Hudson Prize essay competition 2015

One of the distinctive features of most statutory security of payment regimes is that they do not apply to construction contracts between individual consumers and ‘builders’ for work related to dwellings.  The UK’s ‘residential occupier exception’ is contained in s106(2) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.  This paper considers what situations the UK exception covers, or appears to cover; outlines what its consequences are, for those whose contracts fall within it; looks at how evolving consumer protection – notably the Consumer Rights Act 2015 – benefits residential construction employers; and finally asks whether the exception should be abolished or modified.

Introduction – The arrival of statutory adjudication – The ‘residential occupier exception’ – The paper’s aims – Scope of the exception – Statute and case law – The burden of proof – Pther interpretation issues – A broader issue – Effect of falling within the exception: the HGCRA – Scenario I: no general dispute resolution provisions – Scenario II: the parties ‘choose’ adjudication – Is adjudication unfair in law? – The 1993 Directive in English law – Challenging ADR in construction – Rethinking unfair contract terms law – Possible ways forward – Abolish the exception? – Narrow the exception? – ADR in all construction contracts with consumers? –– Conclusions.  

The author: Philip Britton LLB BCL is a Visiting Professor and former Director, Centre of Construction Law & Dispute Resolution, The Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London; a Visiting Scholar, Law School, University of Melbourne; and consultant to the law firm of Fairweather Stephenson & Co Ltd, Aldeburgh, Suffolk: e-mail philip.britton@marshwinds.co.uk.

Text: 23 pages

Paper number: 
193
May 2015, online, 730k
£3.00

Our papers

The Society has published nearly 400 papers since 1984. Some are published both in hard copy and electronically (numbered), others in electronic format only (number prefixed 'D'). The hard copy papers can be purchased (except those marked with an asterisk which are no longer available). They are all also available as PDF files to download.

Those available as downloads can be accessed free by members and registered academics (students and staff) - if logged in, they will see a link to the file just above the Add to Cart button on each paper's page. Others can purchase the PDF file for a cost of £3.00. Note that this sum includes VAT, since VAT is chargeable on digital files.

For further instructions on downloading, click here. The PDF file will only open on your computer if you have Adobe Acrobat installed (to obtain a free copy, click here). To save the paper to your computer, choose the 'save' icon on the Acrobat toolbar before opening the paper.

For personal use only

The papers on this website are for use by SCL members (and those who pay for them) only, and papers may be downloaded, printed and/or otherwise retained for that purpose only by members of the SCL (and those who purchase them).  The availability of all papers past and present represents a significant benefit to members of SCL and wider dissemination of SCL papers dilutes that to the detriment of the membership.  Further and more importantly, copyright in the papers belongs jointly to the writers of the paper and to the SCL, and the SCL is not therefore in a position to provide any wider licence.  Accordingly the SCL asks members and those who purchase papers not to disseminate papers more widely than their licence allows (e.g. by posting them on internal legal resource intranet databases and the like). 

Feedback