| dc.contributor.author | Stephen Donohoe | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-05-08T21:20:42Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-05-08T21:20:42Z | |
| dc.date.copyright | July 2006 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2006 | |
| dc.identifier.other | %28asce%291052-3928%282006%29132%3A3%28258%29.pdf | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/47820 | |
| dc.description.abstract | In recent times, the cost of litigation has emerged as a serious issue in construction law. This paper examines the approach adopted by the English Courts in the light of recent reforms to the civil justice system and important case law. Important legal decisions indicate a change in judicial attitudes to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) which was previously thought to be unenforceable by reason of uncertainty until very recently. This paper looks at the development of so-called “ADR law” in the English courts and discusses policy issues behind the recent case of | |
| dc.publisher | American Society of Civil Engineers | |
| dc.title | “Is That Not Horrific?”—or “You Have Been Warned!” <b><i>Burchell v. Bullard</i></b> and Implications for English Construction Law | |
| dc.type | Journal Paper | |
| dc.journal.volume | 132 | |
| dc.journal.issue | 3 | |
| dc.journal.title | Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2006)132:3(258) | |
| dc.tree | Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice:;2006:;Volume ( 132 ):;issue: 003 | |
| dc.contenttype | Fulltext | |