Adjudication, but not as we know it

I hear a good few horror stories with adjudication. Let's pile up as much stuff as we can and fire it over as our claim to the adjudicator, the other party follows and also shoves in a huge counter claim for the hell of it. Resources from both parties kiss goodbye to both their loved ones and sleep, each for 2 weeks at least. Just what is this hidden cost worth? I don't see the criteria of becoming an adjudicator is to be a clone of Superman so just how can any half decent adjudicator really sift through mountains of rubbish to determine truly what the facts are, the primary role as I see it? Too much is left to chance and errors surely are likely. Also, guess who the beneficiaries are as usual? Those who derive an income from this process, of course.

So why not strip out the quantum side of the claim at least, why not limit the submissions, why not go to a learned adjudicator on a point of principle only? Here's our submissions, have a good read through as they are fairly limited, talk to us, then determine the facts, apply the contract/law and come up with a sound, reasoned award that we can rely upon. Isn't this really what pure adjudication should really be all about? The parties surely then can much more economically determine the quantum arising once a sound decision is in place. Why would you really want an adjudicator at £lots/hr wading through countless spreadsheets of cost?

Too simple or too much of a lost opportunity to ambush/bushwack/win by default/earn ridiculous fees?!

Rob