Zero in on adjudication
Series: Estates Gazette ; (0125) 23 June 2001, 152(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s):- MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
- MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION-ADJUDICATION AWARDS
- MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION-ADJUDICATION AWARDS
- JURISDICTION
- NATURAL JUSTICE
- HUMAN RIGHTS
- HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 S6
- AUSTIN HALL BUILDING LTD V BUCKLAND SECURITIES LTD
- Dispute resolution
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | X113381 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 113381-1001 |
Outlines the debate surrounding the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on adjudication contrasting the ruling in "Austin Hall Building Ltd v Buckland Securities Ltd" with extra-judicial comment made by Judge Thornton and noting that conflicting views may lead to inconsistency in the courts' approach. Observes that challenges to an adjudicators award are unlikely to succeed except on the grounds of jurisdiction and natural justice, and that under the Human Rights Act 1996 s6 adjudicators are not public authorities. Case law.