Challenging juridiction in adjudication proceedings
Series: Construction Law Journal ; 17(1) 2001, 3-13(11)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
- CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
- HOUSING GRANTS CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996
- JURISDICTION
- MACOB CIVIL ENGINEERING LTD V MORRISON CONSTRUCTION LTD
- BOUYGUES UK LTD V DAHL-JENSEN UK LTD
- SHERWOOD AND CASSON LTD V MACKENZIE ENGINEERING LTD
- FASTRACK CONTRACTORS V MORRISON CONSTRUCTION
- SOS FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS V PERCY THOMAS PARTNERSHIP
- Dispute resolution
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS64137 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 113244-1001 |
Examines the grounds on which a party may challenge the jurisdiction of an adjudicator: where there is no dispute; where more than one dispute has be referred to adjudication; where the dispute does not arise under the contract; and where the earlier decision of another adjudicator is revisited. Also considers the possibility of challenging a decision on the basis of a breach of natural justice or the impecuniosity of the successful party. Warns that getting an adjudicator's decision overturned is a difficult process as the courts are frequently reluctant to do so despite the fact that, as adjudication often produces rough justice, the number of applications made is likely to increase. References and case law.