Further to the introduction of the Construction Act 1996 providing a cost-effective method of dispute resolution, it was still prohibitive for low value disputes. Therefore, the CIC Low Value Dispute Model Adjudication Procedure (LVD MAP) was introduced in 2020 with the primary intention to lift that constraint and make way for Parties to low value disputes to access a more streamlined procedure with caps on the adjudicator’s fee. This procedure was subsequently revised and the second edition published in May 2023. One inadvertent consequence of the introduction of the LVD MAP was an arena for the upstart to cut their teeth.

Like adjudication in general, there are three main avenues open to parties to adopt the LVD MAP: statutorily, contractorily or on an ad-hoc basis. That is to say, should the dispute be of a kind where the LVD MAP is suitable, the procedure is generally considered compliant with the Scheme. On the contrary, should a dispute be too complex in nature then it might offend the Scheme and trifle with natural justice.

A notable update to the second edition is the removal of the requirement for both parties to consent to the LVD MAP. Where the Scheme applies (and for that matter other procedural rules aligned with the Scheme), following a request by one of the parties, or at the adjudicator’s discretion, the LVD MAP can be implemented. However, the adjudicator should proceed with caution as the suitability of the dispute would be more open to scrutiny, particularly if the Responding Party reserves its right to challenge.

Should it be the adjudicator that decides the LVD MAP is unsuitable, the recommended course of action at paragraph 15 is to proceed under the rules of the Scheme. At that juncture it would be over to the Referring Party to decide whether to proceed and accept the uncertainty of costs.

Suitability of the LVD MAP

So, when is the LVD MAP suitable for a dispute? Paragraph 48 details a non-exhaustive list of factors which the Adjudicator may consider as demonstrating a dispute is unsuitable. These are as follows:

 1) Value of the dispute is greater than £100,000.

 2) Where a non-financial remedy such as a declaration of entitlement is sought.

 3) A submission exceeds more than one A4 Lever Arch File.

 4) Meetings / Site visits.

 5) Contract terms not easily discernible.

 6) Challenges to the adjudicator’s jurisdiction, which exceed two hours of the adjudicator’s time.

Divergence from the Scheme

The following identifies three key areas where the LVD MAP diverges from the Scheme.

1) The Timetable – At paragraph 19, the LVD MAP provides that unless the adjudicator decides otherwise then the timetable will direct a Referral on Day 0, a Response by Day 7 and a Reply by Day 14, with any further submissions at the adjudicator’s discretion. At paragraph 21, any extension of time is limited to 14 days with the consent of the Referring Party. Unlike the Scheme, there is no provision to further extend the timetable.

2) Obtaining Advice – Whereby the Scheme makes provision for the adjudicator to seek out advice from third parties, the LVD MAP appears to prohibit such an action at paragraph 28: “The Adjudicator will make the Decision relying solely on the Adjudicator’s own judgement“.

3) Adjudicator’s Fees and Expenses – Perhaps the principal part of the rules can be found at paragraph 45. Departing from the industry standard in construction adjudication that the adjudicator is entitled to a reasonable fee which, depending on the complexity of the dispute, might exceed tens of thousands, the LVD MAP limits these fees to £5,000. Exceptions to the fee cap are made for meetings and site visits which are both subject to a cap of £1,000 plus reasonable travel expenses. Additionally, disputes valued over £100,000 can use this procedure with the adjudicators fee cap to be negotiated. For example, a simple payment notice dispute exceeding £100,000 which is capable of being decided within 28 days might be suitable if parties can agree a fee cap with the adjudicator.

Further Consideration

Even though to date there has been no case law involving the LVD MAP, it might be that the absence of evidence is not evidence in itself. In particular, where the Scheme applies and the adjudicator agrees to undertake the LVD MAP procedure there are some potentially conflicting parts in respect the adjudicator’s entitlement to a reasonable fee.

For example, the sliding scale of the dispute value against the adjudicator’s fee misleadingly suggests there is a strong relationship between dispute value and complexity. With LVD MAP it is considered more fundamental that the adjudicator’s fee should be proportional to the dispute value and that might offend the adjudicator’s right to a reasonable fee under the Scheme. Furthermore, in respect of natural justice, the Scheme paragraph 15(c) requires an adjudicator to consider unsolicited submission as time permits. With LVD MAP there might be an issue whereby the adjudicator repeatedly receives unsolicited submissions. In such cases, the adjudicator should be mindful of paragraph 15 and consider these submissions, again potentially foregoing any fee over the cap.

To conclude, the requirement under the Scheme paragraph 12 for an adjudicator not to incur unnecessary expense might theoretically lead to the same time spent on an adjudication under both the Scheme and LVD MAP. However, it might be the case that the LVD MAP in fact provides a stronger framework to ultimately facilitate a reduction in the adjudicator’s fee. The proof is in the pudding – the procedure is certainly proving popular – and as a byproduct providing a training ground for new adjudicators.