000			01741cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS64355
008			010828n2001 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u114348
100			_aBrewer, G
245			_aAdjudicator's enforcement
260			_c2001
490			_aContract Journal _v410(6340) 15 August 2001, 20(1)
520			_aExamines the issue raised in "C & B Scene Concept Design Ltd v Isobars Ltd", TCC 20 June 2001, regarding whether an adjudicator's perceived error can be categorised as an exess of jurisdition. C & B had to apply for adjudication over its entitlement to three interim payments for which Isobars had not given any notice for payment or withholding. The adjudicator held the interim payments should be made under clause 30.3.5 of the JCT Design and Build form but Isobars argued that the adjudicator should not have relied on this clause, therefore his decision was invalid. This was supported by QC Moxon Browne and implies that the courts may be developing a more interventionist approach to the processes for enforcement of adjudicator's decisions by characterising adjudicator's errors as matters of adjudication.
590			_aABS
650			_aC & B SCENE CONCEPT DESIGN LTD V ISOBARS LTD
650			_aSL TIMBER SYSTEMS LTD V CARILLION CONSTRUCTION LTD
650			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
650			_aENFORCEMENT
650			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION-ADJUDICATION AWARDS
650			_aADJUDICATION PROCEDURE
690			_aDispute resolution _96236
942			_n0
999			_c68093 _d68093