Image from Google Jackets

Freeing the adjudication genie from its 28-day decision bottle

By: Series: Architects' Journal ; 221(1) 13 January 2005, 39(1)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: Considers the consequences for adjudicators brought about by a cluster of cases decided by the Technology and Construction Court. The Judge in particular questioned whether it was possible for an adjudicator to come to a conclusion to a case within a 28-day process. For example, in "AWG Construction Services Ltd v Rockingham Motor Speedway Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 88 (TCC), [2004] TCLR 6) the adjudication process was rendered unenforceable by AWG not having a proper opportunity to consider new material produced. Judge Toulmin found that the test for deciding whether a dispute was suitable for adjudication was not if it was too complex but whether an adjudicator could reach a fair decision within the time agreed between the parties.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Journal article London Journal article ABS68623 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 128608-1001

Considers the consequences for adjudicators brought about by a cluster of cases decided by the Technology and Construction Court. The Judge in particular questioned whether it was possible for an adjudicator to come to a conclusion to a case within a 28-day process. For example, in "AWG Construction Services Ltd v Rockingham Motor Speedway Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 88 (TCC), [2004] TCLR 6) the adjudication process was rendered unenforceable by AWG not having a proper opportunity to consider new material produced. Judge Toulmin found that the test for deciding whether a dispute was suitable for adjudication was not if it was too complex but whether an adjudicator could reach a fair decision within the time agreed between the parties.