Freeing the adjudication genie from its 28-day decision bottle
Series: Architects' Journal ; 221(1) 13 January 2005, 39(1)Publication details: 2005Subject(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-ADJUDICATORS
- AWG CONSTRUCTION LTD V ROCKINGHAM MOTOR SPEEDWAY LTD
- BREACHES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
- CIB PROPERTIES LTD V BIRSE CONSTRUCTION LTD
- MCALPINE PPS PIPELINE SYSTEMS LTD V TRANSCO PLC
- MANGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS68623 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 128608-1001 |
Considers the consequences for adjudicators brought about by a cluster of cases decided by the Technology and Construction Court. The Judge in particular questioned whether it was possible for an adjudicator to come to a conclusion to a case within a 28-day process. For example, in "AWG Construction Services Ltd v Rockingham Motor Speedway Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 88 (TCC), [2004] TCLR 6) the adjudication process was rendered unenforceable by AWG not having a proper opportunity to consider new material produced. Judge Toulmin found that the test for deciding whether a dispute was suitable for adjudication was not if it was too complex but whether an adjudicator could reach a fair decision within the time agreed between the parties.