Peter Horne makes the point (11 July, page 32) that "most adjudications involve payments".
I fear this is a truism: parties may claim that they are starting proceedings as a matter of principle, but in reality it always comes down to money.

I have no argument with this – construction companies are commercial outfits, and to spend irrecoverable fees on a principle is uncommercial. But I argue with Mr Horne's statement that because money is involved, lawyers are inappropriate adjudicators. Disputes do indeed involve money, but in my experience they are always about legal rights or obligations, and I respectfully suggest that lawyers are the most appropriate professionals to deal with such issues. As a construction lawyer, I would say that, wouldn't I? But in my defence I am not an adjudicator. Would Mr Horne extend his view to the learned judges in the Technology and Construction Court?

Our industry, and the statutory adjudication system, have enough problems without this unnecessary attitude to lawyers or any other professionals. We should adapt the excellent advice put forward in Oklahoma! – folks should stick together – to the benefit of the whole industry.