000			01983cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS66804
008			030620n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u122682
100			_aAtkinson, D.
245			_aMore can be less efficient
260			_c2003
490			_aConstruction News _v(6815) 8 May 2003, 12(1)
490			_aContract Journal _v419(6433) 2 July 2003, 18(1)
520			_a"Pring and St Hill Ltd v C J Hafner" ([2002] EWHC 1775 (TCC), unreported) deals with whether the scheme for construction contracts allows an adjudicator to adjudicate at the same time on related disputes under different contracts with the consent of the parties. Sir Robert McAlpine had engaged Pring (P) to install glazing on a new building. The glazing was damaged and had to be replaced. Four firms could have caused the damage and four separate cases with the same adjudicator were started to apportion responsibility. P was found liable which then acted against its sub-subcontractor Hafner (H). H did not pay the full amount awarded to P, who then sought enforcement. H's objections to the ruling were manifold, but ultimately this highlights that an adjudicator in this position may be at risk of bias and if one party does not give its consent to parallel adjudications and the adjudication proceeds anyway, he will not have jurisdiction and his decision will be overruled. View judgment at www.bailii.org.
590			_aABS
650			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
650			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
650			_aCONSTRUCTION DISPUTES
650			_aPRING AND ST HILL LTD V C J HAFNER
690			_aMANGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2002/1775.htmlzView judgment on the BAILII website...
942			_n0
999			_c72898 _d72898