Skaik, S; Coggins, J and Mills, A (2015) Investigating the factors influencing the quality of adjudication of complex payment disputes in Australia. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2015, Lincoln, UK.
Abstract
Statutory adjudication has been enacted throughout Australia on a state-by-state basis. The original enacting legislation may be broadly divided into two models which have become known as the East Coast and West Coast models. The East Coast model adjudication scheme – which is operational in NSW, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, ACT and South Australia – has in recent times come under much criticism for failing to facilitate determinations of sufficient quality with respect to large and/or complex payment claims. By carrying out a thorough desktop study approach whereby evidence is garnered from three primary sources – government commissioned consultation papers, academic publications and judicial decisions – this paper reviews this criticism and therefrom distils the key factors influencing the quality of adjudication of large and/or complex claims in Australia.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | adjudicators' determinations; complex payment disputes; security of payment; statutory adjudication |
| Index terms: | security of payment, publication, South Australia, adjudicator, evidence, Victoria, dispute, Australia, Queensland, adjudication, statutory adjudication, legislation |
| Subjects: | physical geography and landforms, warranties, Geography, evaluation and assessment methods, research dissemination and communication, practitioner, dispute resolution, legal systems, regions and continents |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Contract Administration, Information Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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