| 000 | 01546cam a2200217 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS63149 | ||
| 008 | 000000n2000 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u109430 | ||
| 100 | _aBingham, T | ||
| 245 | _aOnce bitten, fight shy | ||
| 260 | _c2000 | ||
| 490 |
_aBuilding _v265(8161) 10 November 2000, 67(1) |
||
| 520 | _aExamines how adjudicator's figures on an award have proved controversial, with detailed reference to the recent "Edmund Nuttall v Sevenoaks DC" case. The adjudicator's award was based on a wrong calculation, which resulted in Sevenoaks presenting Nuttall with a cheque for a lot less than the adjudicator's figure. Nuttall held a good case, due to the binding nature of an adjudicators decision, but the case differed from previous cases because the adjudicator had admitted an error in the award figures. With reference to the "Bloor v Bowmer & Kirkland" case, the clearest guidance is that an admitted error can be corrected 'provided it was done within a reasonable time and without prejudicing the other party'. | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 650 | _aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION | ||
| 650 | _aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION-ADJUDICATION AWARDS | ||
| 650 | _aBLOOR CONSTRUCTION V BOWMER AND KIRKLAND | ||
| 650 | _aEDMUND NUTTALL V SEVENOAKS DC | ||
| 690 |
_aDispute resolution _96236 |
||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c65320 _d65320 |
||