000			01536cam a2200229 4500
001			ABS66002
008			021018n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u120177
100			_aAtkinson, D.
245		4	_aThe Act requires written terms
260			_c2002
490			_aConstruction News _v(6784) 19 September 2002, 22(1)
520			_aHousing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s107 says that qualifying contracts must be in writing if the Act is to apply. The meaning of the phrase has been considered in the case of "RJT Consulting engineers v DM Engineering (NI)" (2001) where both RJT and DM had an oral contract of construction operations as defined in s105 of the Act. This point was not disputed by either party, but RJT argued that the whole agreement had to be in writing if the contract was to be bound by the Act and the adjudicator to have any jurisdiction. The significance of the case being that all the terms and not just the existence of a contract should be evident in writing if the contract is to qualify being referred to adjudication.
590			_aABS
650			_aHOUSING GRANTS, CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996 S107
650			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
650			_aR J T CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD V D M ENGINEERING (NI) LTD
650			_aORAL AGREEMENTS
650			_aWRITTEN EVIDENCE
690			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
942			_n0
999			_c71391 _d71391