000			01801cab a2200241 4500
001			ABS68623
008			050125n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u128608
100			_aFranklin, K.
245			_aFreeing the adjudication genie from its 28-day decision bottle
260			_c2005
490			_aArchitects' Journal _v221(1) 13 January 2005, 39(1)
520			_aConsiders the consequences for adjudicators brought about by a cluster of cases decided by the Technology and Construction Court. The Judge in particular questioned whether it was possible for an adjudicator to come to a conclusion to a case within a 28-day process. For example, in "AWG Construction Services Ltd v Rockingham Motor Speedway Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 88 (TCC), [2004] TCLR 6) the adjudication process was rendered unenforceable by AWG not having a proper opportunity to consider new material produced. Judge Toulmin found that the test for deciding whether a dispute was suitable for adjudication was not if it was too complex but whether an adjudicator could reach a fair decision within the time agreed between the parties.
590			_aABS
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-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION-ADJUDICATORS
650			_aAWG CONSTRUCTION LTD V ROCKINGHAM MOTOR SPEEDWAY LTD
650			_aBREACHES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
650			_aCIB PROPERTIES LTD V BIRSE CONSTRUCTION LTD
650			_aMCALPINE PPS PIPELINE SYSTEMS LTD V TRANSCO PLC
690			_aMANGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
942			_n0
999			_c74753 _d74753