Why we've legalised theft
Series: Building ; 266(8165) 19 January 2001, 60-61(2)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
- HOUSING GRANTS CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996 S108(3)
- SCHEME FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS PARA 23(2)
- SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
- UNJUST ENRICHMENT
- Dispute resolution
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63416 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 110689-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Calls for reform of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s108(3) and of the Scheme for Construction Contracts Paragraph 23(2), which prevents the court or an arbitrator from reviewing an adjudicator's decision on an interim basis. This effectively means that an adjudicator's decision is irreversible. Consequently an unfair enrichment of one of the parties by that decision cannot be challenged unless: summary judgment is withheld; a cross-application for an accelerated trial is allowed alongside summary judgement; or summary judgment is not enforced before an accelerated trial or adjudication. Alternatively a judge could grant summary judgment but grant an application to have the award made by the adjudicator repaid to the defendant.