Austin Hall Building Ltd v Buckland Securities Ltd
Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; [2001] CILL 1734-1739(6)Publication details: 2001Subject(s):- MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
- AUSTIN HALL BUILDING LTD V BUCKLAND SECURITIES LTD
- CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6
- HOUSING GRANTS CONSTRUCTION AND RENGENERATION ACT 1996 S108
- HUMAN RIGHTS
- HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 S6
- JCT AGREEMENT FOR MINOR BUILDING WORKS 1998
- NATURAL JUSTICE
- JCT AGREEMENT FOR MINOR BUILDING WORKS (1998 EDITION)
- MANGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS64140 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 113457-1001 |
TCC 11 April 2001. The defendant (B) engaged the claimant (A) to carry out certain building works under an engagement incorporating the terms of the JCT Agreement for Minor Building Works. When B did not make a decision on a draft final account submitted after practical completion A referred the dispute to adjudication and then to enforcement proceedings after B failed to comply with the adjudicators decision. At the enforcement proceedings B claimed that the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s108 contravened their human rights under the European Convention of Human Rights Art 6. B's argument was dismissed on the following grounds: that, under the Human Rights Act 1998 s6(2)(a), s6(1) of the Act did not apply as in order to comply with the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 the adjudicator could not have acted differently; that the adjudicator was not, in these circumstances, a public authority and therefore not obliged to not to contravene with the Convention; and that Art 6 did not apply, if it had applied then the court hearing was a part of the process and constituted a public hearing, and that B had waived any right to a hearing. It was also noted that, in any case, the adjudicator had not breached Art 6 or natural justice. Copy of judgement available on http://porch.ccta.gov.uk/courtser/judgements.nsf/Search/DDB3604EED13208280256A34005B15A3?OpenDocument