000			01733cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS67425
008			040205n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u125046
100			_aBingham, T.
245			_aNo job for superman
260			_c2004
490			_aBuilding _v269(8315) 16 January 2004, 66-67(2)
520			_aExamines the system of settling construction disputes with reference to "Checkpoint Ltd v Strathclyde Pension Fund" ([2003] EWCA Civ 84, Abs...). Explains that England has an adversarial system for deciding disputes that has the parties challenging and testing the other party. Argues that it is a problem if the adjudicator is such an expert in what they already know that they are not flexible enough in their views. In the Checkpoint case, the CA said the question was whether the arbitrator was supplying evidence or adjudicating upon it. It was found that the arbitrator did not stray outside the issues joined between the parties as he used his own knowledge gained from his experience but only about the issues argued by A and B. The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 indicate that the adjudicator may take the initiative in ascertaining the facts and the law but only necessary to determine the dispute.
590			_aABS
650			_aCHECKPOINT LTD V STRATHCLYDE PENSION FUND
650			_aHOUSING GRANTS, CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996
650			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
650			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
690			_aDispute resolution _96236
942			_n0
999			_c74121 _d74121