| 000 | 01270cam a2200241 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS63559 | ||
| 008 | 000000n2001 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u111116 | ||
| 100 | _aCottam, G. | ||
| 245 | _aLaw tends to back up fair adjudication | ||
| 260 | _c2001 | ||
| 490 |
_aConstruction News _v(6702) 8 February 2001, 12(1) |
||
| 520 | _aCourts will usually uphold an adjudicator's decision, although if the court feels the adjudicator does not have jurisdiction, the decision will not be enforced. Discusses three cases which illustrate the concept of fairness in adjudication procedure: "Discain Project Services v Opec Prime Developments"; "Woods Hardwick v Chiltern Air Conditioning"; and "Karl Construction (Scotland) v Sweeney Civil Engineering (Scotland)" | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 650 | _aFAIRNESS | ||
| 650 | _aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION | ||
| 650 | _aDISCAIN PROJECT SERVICES LTD V OPECPRIME DEVELOPMENT LTD | ||
| 650 | _aWOODS HARDWICK LTD V CHILTERN AIR CONDITIONING | ||
| 650 | _aKARL CONSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND) V SWEENEY CIVIL ENGINEERING (SCOTLAND) | ||
| 650 | _aPROCEDURE | ||
| 690 |
_aDispute resolution _96236 |
||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c66204 _d66204 |
||