The case of rich vs poor
Language: English Series: Building ; 270(8375) 1 April 2005, 54-55(2)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: Argues that construction disputes often involve companies who cannot afford to appear with lawyers or claim consultants. A good example of this is the recent case, "Buxton Building Contractors Ltd v Govenors of Durand Primary School ([2004] EWHC 733 (TCC), [2004] BLR 374). Here the governors were not represented properly which led to unfair proceedings and an unenforceable decision. Notes that the McDonalds libel case of "Steel and Morris v the United Kingdom" in the European Court of Human Rights (68416/01, unreported) had stated that the UK had a duty to provide expertise and resources so that a poorer party could conduct a case adequately. Suggests three approaches whereby the state could provide legal aid, including, giving consideration to modifying the absolute bar on an adjudicator awarding costs to the successful party.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L129298 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 129298-1001 |
Argues that construction disputes often involve companies who cannot afford to appear with lawyers or claim consultants. A good example of this is the recent case, "Buxton Building Contractors Ltd v Govenors of Durand Primary School ([2004] EWHC 733 (TCC), [2004] BLR 374). Here the governors were not represented properly which led to unfair proceedings and an unenforceable decision. Notes that the McDonalds libel case of "Steel and Morris v the United Kingdom" in the European Court of Human Rights (68416/01, unreported) had stated that the UK had a duty to provide expertise and resources so that a poorer party could conduct a case adequately. Suggests three approaches whereby the state could provide legal aid, including, giving consideration to modifying the absolute bar on an adjudicator awarding costs to the successful party.