000			01848cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS68825
008			050324n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u129161
100			_aFranklin, K.
245			_aAdjudication has been referred to on many occasions in the past
260			_c2005
490			_aArchitects' Journal _v221(10) 17 March 2005, 48(1)
520			_aExamines the notion that construction disputes can be referred to adjudication at any time, even after a project has been completed, paid for and occupied. Discusses "Emcor Drake and Scull Ltd v Costain Skanska Joint Venture" ([2004] EWHC (TCC) 2439, unreported) which further looked at the issue of how many times a dispute can be referred. When Emcor (E) and Costain (C) entered a dispute over whether E could claim an extension of time, an adjudicator found that E had failed to prove its claim. However, E then referred the claim to a different adjudicator, who found in E's favour. C challenged the second decision, arguing that E should be bound by the first decision. Judge found that the first adjudicator had argued that C's claim was not proved and the second adjudicator had revisited the matter and his decision was enforceable. Concludes a dispute can be referred to adjudication at any time and more than once. View judgment at www.bailii.org.
590			_aABS
650			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
650			_aEMCOR DRAKE AND SCULL LTD V COSTAIN SKANSKA JOINT VENTURE
650			_aCONSTRUCTION DISPUTES
690			_aMANGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2004/2439.html _zView judgment on the Bailii website...
942			_n0
999			_c74977 _d74977