Adjudication has contributed much to the construction industry since it was introduced by the Construction Act 1996. In a whole, disputes are resolved more quickly (if not more fairly) and, after some initial scepticism, the industry as a whole has come to accept, if not love, this "new" form of dispute resolution. It is perhaps a measure of adjudication's success that very few disputes progress beyond the provisional but binding decision of the adjudicator. By and large, parties appear to live with the decision or use it as the platform for a negotiated settlement.
However, while adjudication has given much, it has also taken plenty away. There have been close to 400 cases concerning adjudication (relating to jurisdiction, natural justice, what is a "construction operation"? etc), since the introduction of adjudication, there are relatively few "traditional" construction disputes going through the courts (on issues such as extension of time and loss and expense). The development of the common law by the courts in England and Scotland has been the victim of adjudication's success.
The dearth of new case law on causation, concurrency, critical path analysis and similar issues may partially explain the level of interest and comment generated by Lord Drummond Young's decision in City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd. This was, after all, exactly the type of dispute adjudication effectively removed from the courts.
However, what really provoked discussions about the case was Lord Drummond Young's apparent rejection of detailed critical path analysis in favour of a more practical assessment of the impact of delay events, together with an "apportionment" exercise where there was no "dominant cause" of delay. (The case is also interesting for its discussion of a bespoke provision (clause 13.8) which City Inn argued barred Shepherd from obtaining any extension of time under the law of waiver).

