Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSean Brannigan
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-08T21:20:54Z
dc.date.available2017-05-08T21:20:54Z
dc.date.copyrightApril 2008
dc.date.issued2008
dc.identifier.other%28asce%291052-3928%282008%29134%3A2%28209%29.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/47918
dc.description.abstractThis paper explores what has been the most successful attempt to date to introduce an “escape hatch” into the adjudication process for those on the wrong end of decisions: the area of natural justice. The decisions of the Technology and Construction Court relating to this area reflect the complexity of the key policy consideration underlying them: the extent to which judges should second guess adjudicators when it comes to matters of procedure. The paper argues that the Technology and Construction Court has in recent years reached a high water mark of intervention before being reigned in by the then senior judge of that court and by the Court of Appeal. It suggests that a more stable and predictable position now prevails. That certainty, common approach, and balance have been welcomed by the construction industry. This paper suggests that welcome is a better benchmark of whether the intervention/nonintervention debate has been correctly resolved than any academic or theoretical approach.
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
dc.titleJudicial Intervention and Its Key Battleground: Natural Justice
dc.typeJournal Paper
dc.journal.volume134
dc.journal.issue2
dc.journal.titleJournal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
dc.identifier.doi10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2008)134:2(209)
dc.treeJournal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice:;2008:;Volume ( 134 ):;issue: 002
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record