000			01924cab a2200253 4500
001			ABS67329
008			040107n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u124739
100			_aRedmond, J.
245			_aKeep it simple, stupid
260			_c2003
490			_aBuilding _v268(8313) 19 December 2003, 20(1)
520			_aArgues for adjudication rules to be made simpler in the light of "Pegram v Tally Wiejl (UK) Ltd" ([2003] EWCA Civ 1750, [2004] 1 WLR 2082-2097(16). P and T had disagreed over which adjudication rules should apply to settle a final account dispute. P favoured the Scheme for Construction Contracts whilst T maintained that the Construction Industry model arbitration rules should apply. The adjudicator applied the Scheme rules and made an award in favour of P which was upheld by the TCC ([2003] EWHC 984 (TCC), [2003] 3 All ER 98). T appealed. CA overturned the decision on the grounds that, as there was no contract in writing, it was possible that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction. Noted that lawyers who support the efforts of the courts to stop artificial arguments about the enforceability of adjudicators' decisions will reluctantly accept that this decision is correct. Argues for a less restrictive version of adjudication where the right to adjudication should apply in any situation where a contractor is entitled to payment for work done.
590			_aABS
650			_aPEGRAM V TALLY WIEJL (UK) LTD
650			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
650			_aADJUDICATION RULES
650			_aCONSTRUCTION DISPUTES
650			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS-STANDARD FORMS OF BUILDING CONTRACT-JOINT CONTRACTS TRIBNUAL CONTRACTS
650			_aPAYMENT CLAUSES
650			_aWRITTEN AGREEMENTS
690			_aDISPUTE RESOLUTION _96236
942			_n0
999			_c74030 _d74030