000			01558cam a2200229 4500
001			ABS68122
008			040826n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u127170
100			_aFranklin, K.
245			_aWinners and losers in the adjudicators' generation game
260			_c2004
490			_aArchitects' Journal _v220(2) 8 July 2004, 40(1)
520			_aDiscusses "Conor Engineering v Les Constructions Industrielle de la Mediterranee" ([2004] EWHC 899 (TCC), [2004] BLR 212-222) where CIM was engaged to design and build plant to incinerate waste and generate electricity. Subcontractor Conor referred payment disputes to an adjudicator, but CIM argued that the adjudicator's decision, in favour of Conor, was unenforceable as the works were carried out on a site where the primary activity was power generation, which were excluded from recourse to adjudication under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. It was ruled that waste incineration was the primary activity, which is included under the Act, so the decision was judged enforceable. Concludes careful consideration should be given to the issue of whether contracts are on the included or excluded parts of the Act, before adjudication is undertaken.
590			_aABS
590			_aABS
650			_aCONOR ENGINEERING V LES CONSTRUCTIONS INDUSTRIELLE DE LA MEDITERRANEE
650			_aADJUDICATION
650			_aHOUSING GRANTS, CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996
650			_aEXCLUSIONS
690			_aDISPUTE RESOLUTION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c117903 _d117903