A good example of this can been seen between New South Wales and Queensland, where two different pieces of legislation would set the standards for the process to include: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (for New South Wales) and Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (for Queensland). This proved problematic, because parties could go through the adjudication process and if they lose, they could begin arbitration; effectively avoiding the adjudication penalties. To rectify this situation, New South Wales required that all losers in adjudication must pay all awards to the plaintiff (in a 2002 amendment). Queensland implemented a similar provision in 2007. This helped to increase the overall effectiveness of adjudication being used to settle a variety of disputes, in the construction industry. Besides the obvious differences of regional autonomy, the Australian model differs from the UK model based on the overall days that the arbitrator has to settle awards (which is: 10 days) and all claims must be made within the overall scope of the contract. The Effects of Adjudication on the Commonwealth

Adjudication is having a major impact upon the way that various disputes within the construction industry are settled. While, the standards are different between the states / territories, the fact of the matter is that the process is evolving to become another way of settling various disputes. The most significant innovations are with the amendments to the adjudication process in New South Wales and Queensland. Where, the requirement that all defendants are required to pay the plaintiff has closed a major loop hole and made the process relevant. As a result, over 2,500 cases were handled in New South Wales between 2002 (when the changes were made) and 2006. This is significant, because it shows how the adjudication process is becoming an effective way for settling disputes outside of the court. However,...

This means that some sort of universal standard should be applied to the Commonwealth. This will make the overall process of adjudication more effective, as it can provide universal standards and procedures for effective dispute resolution.
Clearly, adjudication is evolving to become a part of the dispute resolution process for the Commonwealth. The various standards are different depending upon the state / territory where the procedure is taking place. As a result, the different standards for Australian adjudication will be different from the UK model. In order, to have the most effective adjudication process requires mirroring the best elements of the UK model. One way to do this is to create universal standards of adjudication throughout the Commonwealth. This will create an effective process for settling various disputes outside of courts. It is through viewing the adjudication process in this light, which highlights how it is becoming a part of Australian legal traditions.

Bibliography

Australian Guide to Legal Citations (2002) Murl Law at 10 June 2010.

Users Guide to Adjudication (2003)

Kirsh, Harvey. 'Adjudication in the Construction Industry' (2009) the Lawyers Weekly

Sheridan, Peter, 'Construction Act Review' (2007) 5(23) Construction Law Journal 364

Kirsh, Harvey. 'Adjudication in the Construction Industry' (2009) the Lawyers Weekly http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=1051

Users Guide to Adjudication (2003)

Sheridan, Peter, 'Construction Act Review' (2007) 5(23) Construction Law Journal 364 http://www.feg.com.au/papers/AdjudicationDownUnder.htm

Sheridan, Peter, 'Construction Act Review' (2007) 5(23) Construction Law Journal 364 http://www.feg.com.au/papers/AdjudicationDownUnder.htm