Once bitten, fight shy
Series: Building ; 265(8161) 10 November 2000, 67(1)Publication details: 2000Subject(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
- BLOOR CONSTRUCTION V BOWMER AND KIRKLAND
- EDMUND NUTTALL V SEVENOAKS DC
- Dispute resolution
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63149 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 109430-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Examines how adjudicator's figures on an award have proved controversial, with detailed reference to the recent "Edmund Nuttall v Sevenoaks DC" case. The adjudicator's award was based on a wrong calculation, which resulted in Sevenoaks presenting Nuttall with a cheque for a lot less than the adjudicator's figure. Nuttall held a good case, due to the binding nature of an adjudicators decision, but the case differed from previous cases because the adjudicator had admitted an error in the award figures. With reference to the "Bloor v Bowmer & Kirkland" case, the clearest guidance is that an admitted error can be corrected 'provided it was done within a reasonable time and without prejudicing the other party'.