Get real, m'lud
Series: Building ; 266(8184) 11 May 2001, 47-48(2)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: With reference to the case of "Discain v Opecprime", argues that adjudicators should be free to telephone one party without the presence of the other party during the 28 day period in order to clarify evidence. Suggests that Judge Bowsher's recommendation in "Discain v Opecprime" of limiting one-to-one telephone calls to an administrative nature to avoid appearing impartial, is unrealistic given the level of investigation required in a short timescale.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63979 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 112794-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
With reference to the case of "Discain v Opecprime", argues that adjudicators should be free to telephone one party without the presence of the other party during the 28 day period in order to clarify evidence. Suggests that Judge Bowsher's recommendation in "Discain v Opecprime" of limiting one-to-one telephone calls to an administrative nature to avoid appearing impartial, is unrealistic given the level of investigation required in a short timescale.