000			01952cam a2200253 4500
001			ABS68332
008			041022n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u127800
100			_aBrewer, G.
245			_aChallenging jurisdiction
260			_c2004
490			_aContract Journal _v425(6493) 15 September 2004, 50(1)
520			_aDiscusses "McAlpine PPS Pipeline Systems Joint Venture v Transco plc" (QBD [2004] 8 BLR 352-373(22), which looked at grounds by which an adjudicator's decision can be challenged. Transco (T) had employed McAlpine (M) to carry out construction works and when a dispute arose as to payment, M referred the matter to adjudication. M claimed entitlement to interest under the contract when T failed to certify the amount due by the contract assessment date. T claimed it had not had the opportunity to view the whole claim against it. Adjudicator ordered M to give background to the compensation claims, which it did. T objected to the volume of evidence as not submitted previously and refused to pay M as ordered by the adjudicator. M brought proceedings to enforce the decision. Judge decided M was not entitled to summary judgment in respect of an adjudicator's decision in its favour, as T had a realistic chance of contending that the adjudicator gave a decision in a dispute not referred to him and acted beyond his jurisdiction.
590			_aABS
590			_aABS
650			_aMCALPINE PPS PIPELINE SYSTEMS LTD V TRANSCO PLC
650			_aContracts _96232
650			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
650			_aSUMMARY JUDGMENTS
650			_aAWARDS
650			_a-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION-ADJUDICATORS-ADJUDICATORS' JURISDICTION
690			_aDISPUTE RESOLUTION _96236
942			_n0
999			_c118215 _d118215