Coggins, J K and Donohoe, S (2012) The validity of adjudicators' determinations containing errors of law: A comparison of the judicial approach in England and New South Wales. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 4(2), pp. 116-125. ISSN 1756-1450
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the development of English Law and the Law in New South Wales, Australia in statutory adjudication concerning judicial review of adjudicators' errors in law.; Design/methodology/approach – This paper adopts a black-letter law approach focussing on recent decisions and their effect on statutory adjudication.; Findings – Following the commencement of statutory adjudication in the UK, the English courts swiftly supported the new “pay now, argue later”, rapid form of dispute resolution by holding adjudication to be a private dispute resolution process akin to expert valuation. As such, the English courts have consistently held that adjudicators operate within their jurisdiction even though they may err on points of law, as long as such errors were committed in the course of attempting to answer a question they were contractually authorised to consider. The courts' position in New South Wales (NSW), however, has differed considerably. In NSW, the first Australian State to introduce statutory adjudication, the courts' position with respect to errors of law on the face of the record made by an adjudicator, who had jurisdiction to enter on the inquiry, in the course of making their determination has been somewhat tortuous. Contrary to the initial position following commencement of statutory adjudication, the paper concludes that it may now be more difficult to enforce an adjudicator’s determination which contains an error of law in England than in NSW.; Originality/value – This paper compares the development of adjudication law in England with that of one state in Australia. The different directions that the law has taken in these jurisdictions will be of interest to academic and practitioners not only in England and Australia but to other jurisdictions where statutory adjudication has been introduced or where legislation is being considered. To the authors knowledge no previous study of this kind has been carried out previously.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; error of law; judicial review; law; security of payment; statutory adjudication; UK |
| Index terms: | adjudication, statutory adjudication, England, dispute, validity, Australia, adjudicator, judicial review, security of payment, resolution, legislation, face, jurisdiction, methodology, practitioner, New South Wales |
| Subjects: | legal systems, psychology, practitioner, dispute resolution, evaluation and assessment methods, conflict resolution, warranties, Geography, research methods |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Legal Issues, Organizational Design, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here