000			01991cab a2200205 4500
001			##L136663
008			070214n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u136663
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aHarlow and Milner v Linda Teasdale _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2006
520			_a[2006] EWHC 1708 (TCC), 7 July 2006. Highlights the clear but sometimes harsh consequences of the system of construction adjudication. Applicant company (H) applied for an order for sale of property belonging to respondent (T) pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 73.10. T had entered into a contract with H in respect of works to refurbish T's three properties that were affected by asbestos contamination. The building contract did not mention the grant monies promised by the local authority. Problems arose and H claimed interim payments, of which the local authority paid some. T did not pay further sums as T had not realised under the contract with H that she had to pay any shortfall. Following an adjudicator's decision in H's favour and the ongoing failure of T to pay the judgment sum, H sought an order for sale. "Held": the order for the sale of property was granted as it was unlikely that T would pay the judgement sum and the terms of the order would not cause irredeemable injustice to T. Concludes that the difficulties did not stem from the adjudication, but from the way in which the contractual arrangements were set up.
650	2	4	_aHARLOW AND MILNER V TEASDALE
650	2	4	_aCIVIL PROCEDURE RULES PART 73.10
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
690			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2006/1708.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c78396 _d78396