Law tends to back up fair adjudication
Series: Construction News ; (6702) 8 February 2001, 12(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s):- FAIRNESS
- MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
- DISCAIN PROJECT SERVICES LTD V OPECPRIME DEVELOPMENT LTD
- WOODS HARDWICK LTD V CHILTERN AIR CONDITIONING
- KARL CONSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND) V SWEENEY CIVIL ENGINEERING (SCOTLAND)
- PROCEDURE
- Dispute resolution
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63559 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 111116-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Courts will usually uphold an adjudicator's decision, although if the court feels the adjudicator does not have jurisdiction, the decision will not be enforced. Discusses three cases which illustrate the concept of fairness in adjudication procedure: "Discain Project Services v Opec Prime Developments"; "Woods Hardwick v Chiltern Air Conditioning"; and "Karl Construction (Scotland) v Sweeney Civil Engineering (Scotland)"