Procedural errors by adjudicators
Series: Contract Journal ; 410(6346) 26 September 2001, 23(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s):- BARR LTD V LAW MINING LTD
- MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION-ADJUDICATORS
- MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
- PROCEDURAL ERROR
- Dispute resolution
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS64525 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 114912-1001 |
Observes that, since the introduction of adjudication under the Construction Act 1996, it has become increasingly clear that adjudicators need to be highly skilled in conducting the proceedings put before them. The parties have become ever more alert to the opportunities and pitfalls presented by the payment provisions of the Act. Similarly, lawyers have devised arguments of increasing subtlety to resist the enforcement of adjudicators' decisions. Illustrates these points through discussion of the decision of the Outer House of the Court of Session in Scotland in two cases between Barr and Law Mining. The implication of the court's ruling is that procedural errors by the adjudicator, in respect of the crystallisation of the matters in dispute, may give rise to an error in jurisdiction. This will render all, or part of, the decision unenforceable.