Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorStephen Donohoe
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-08T21:20:42Z
dc.date.available2017-05-08T21:20:42Z
dc.date.copyrightJuly 2006
dc.date.issued2006
dc.identifier.other%28asce%291052-3928%282006%29132%3A3%28258%29.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/47820
dc.description.abstractIn 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.publisherAmerican 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.typeJournal Paper
dc.journal.volume132
dc.journal.issue3
dc.journal.titleJournal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
dc.identifier.doi10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2006)132:3(258)
dc.treeJournal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice:;2006:;Volume ( 132 ):;issue: 003
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record