YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    Mandating the Continuing Professional Development in Statutory Adjudication: Adjudicators’ Perspectives

    Source: Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction:;2022:;Volume ( 014 ):;issue: 004::page 04522023
    Author:
    Samer Skaik
    ,
    Kelly Fernandez Monsalvo
    DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000566
    Publisher: ASCE
    Abstract: Statutory adjudication is a swift dispute resolution platform to determine payment disputes within the building and construction industry security of payment legislation. In recent years, Australian courts have been more willing to intervene in the adjudication process due to the poor decision-making process and/or failure of some adjudicators to comply with the basic and essential requirements under the legislation. To improve the competence of adjudicators, Queensland has recently mandated continuing professional development (CPD) requirements for all registered adjudicators and required adjudicators to engage in predefined educational activities and obtain at least 10 CPD points every year to maintain their eligibility to adjudicate. This timely study explores the perceptions of Queensland adjudicators and the factors influencing the effective implementation of the mandatory CPD requirements. The study follows an inductive qualitative approach by adopting semistructured interviews with 11 registered adjudicators in Queensland. The study found that adjudicators generally support the notion of the CPD requirements but had mixed views regarding the content and dynamics of CPD activities. The study identified and discussed key factors influencing the effective implementation of the CPD policy, including the requirements for adjudicator registration and renewal, adjudication panel size, and adjudicator appointment criteria. The study findings are not only beneficial to inform future reforms in Queensland but also relevant to other comparable jurisdictions seeking to mandate similar CPD requirements for adjudicators.
    • Download: (186.8Kb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Statistics

      Mandating the Continuing Professional Development in Statutory Adjudication: Adjudicators’ Perspectives

    URI
    https://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4287753
    Collections
    • Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction

    Show full item record

    contributor authorSamer Skaik
    contributor authorKelly Fernandez Monsalvo
    date accessioned2022-12-27T20:39:51Z
    date available2022-12-27T20:39:51Z
    date issued2022/11/01
    identifier other(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000566.pdf
    identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4287753
    description abstractStatutory adjudication is a swift dispute resolution platform to determine payment disputes within the building and construction industry security of payment legislation. In recent years, Australian courts have been more willing to intervene in the adjudication process due to the poor decision-making process and/or failure of some adjudicators to comply with the basic and essential requirements under the legislation. To improve the competence of adjudicators, Queensland has recently mandated continuing professional development (CPD) requirements for all registered adjudicators and required adjudicators to engage in predefined educational activities and obtain at least 10 CPD points every year to maintain their eligibility to adjudicate. This timely study explores the perceptions of Queensland adjudicators and the factors influencing the effective implementation of the mandatory CPD requirements. The study follows an inductive qualitative approach by adopting semistructured interviews with 11 registered adjudicators in Queensland. The study found that adjudicators generally support the notion of the CPD requirements but had mixed views regarding the content and dynamics of CPD activities. The study identified and discussed key factors influencing the effective implementation of the CPD policy, including the requirements for adjudicator registration and renewal, adjudication panel size, and adjudicator appointment criteria. The study findings are not only beneficial to inform future reforms in Queensland but also relevant to other comparable jurisdictions seeking to mandate similar CPD requirements for adjudicators.
    publisherASCE
    titleMandating the Continuing Professional Development in Statutory Adjudication: Adjudicators’ Perspectives
    typeJournal Article
    journal volume14
    journal issue4
    journal titleJournal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction
    identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000566
    journal fristpage04522023
    journal lastpage04522023_8
    page8
    treeJournal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction:;2022:;Volume ( 014 ):;issue: 004
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian