Ask yourself this
Series: Building ; 266(8166) 26 January 2001, 61(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s):- MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
- ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE
- MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION-ADJUDICATION AWARDS
- Dispute resolution
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63421 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 110799-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Discusses "Karl Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Sweeney Civil Engineering Ltd" (2000) where the adjudicator did not ask the parties to address her on one of two key points in the case. Although a judge subsequently refused to set this decision aside, as there is no means for correcting a procedural error as in arbitration or litigation, the case serves to emphasise the rough and ready nature of the process.