| 000 | 01418cam a2200241 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS67791 | ||
| 008 | 040603n2004 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u126397 | ||
| 100 | _aBlackler, T. | ||
| 245 | _aPermanent fixes | ||
| 260 | _c2004 | ||
| 490 |
_aBuilding _v269(8232) 14 May 2004, 56(1) |
||
| 520 | _aDebates whether lessons can be learnt from the process plant sector for the Housing, Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 which is under active review at the moment. In "Rhodia Chirex v Laker Vent Engineering Ltd" ([2003] EWCA Civ 1859, [2003] ALL ER CD 351 (Dec)) the CA held that a model form of contract did not preclude the appointment of an expert to determine what sum was due under the termination provisions. The court stated that, unlike an adjudicator's decision on an interim certificate under a JCT contract, if the expert reviewing the provisional certificate decided which sums were properly due these would be final and binding. They could not validly be changed by the project manager's final certificate. | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 650 | _aHOUSING GRANTS, CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996 | ||
| 650 | _aRHODIA CHIREX V LAKER VENT ENGINEERING LTD | ||
| 650 | _aINSTITUTION OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS | ||
| 650 | _aCONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY | ||
| 650 |
_aDISPUTE RESOLUTION _96236 |
||
| 690 | _aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-CONTRACTS | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c117463 _d117463 |
||