Abstracts – Browse Results
Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 9 results ...
Al-Sobiei, O S, Arditi, D and Polat, G (2005) Predicting the risk of contractor default in Saudi Arabia utilizing artificial neural network (ANN) and genetic algorithm (GA) techniques. Construction Management and Economics, 23(04), 423-30.
Couto, J P and Teixeira, J C (2005) Using linear model for learning curve effect on highrise floor construction. Construction Management and Economics, 23(04), 355-64.
Dainty, A R J, Ison, S G and Briscoe, G H (2005) The construction labour market skills crisis: the perspective of small-medium-sized firms. Construction Management and Economics, 23(04), 387-98.
Hassanein, A and Moselhi, O (2005) Accelerating linear projects. Construction Management and Economics, 23(04), 377-85.
Liu, S L, Wang, S Y and Lai, K K (2005) A general multivariate analysis approach for determining bid mark-up strategy. Construction Management and Economics, 23(04), 347-53.
Min, W and Pheng, L S (2005) Economic order quantity (EOQ) versus just-in-time (JIT) purchasing: an alternative analysis in the ready-mixed concrete industry. Construction Management and Economics, 23(04), 409-22.
Ndekugri, I and Russell, V (2005) Insolvency and resolution of construction contract disputes by adjudication in the UK construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 23(04), 399-408.
- Type: Journal Article
- Keywords: construction; contracts; disputes; adjudication; insolvency
- ISBN/ISSN: 0144-6193
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619042000326747
- Abstract:
The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 provides that a party to a construction contract has a right, at any time, to refer any dispute under the contract for adjudication. This resolution method requires a neutral third party, the adjudicator, to determine the dispute within 28 days after receipt of the referral regardless of the complexity of the issues in dispute. The decision is to be implemented even if it is palpably wrong in fact or law. A key assumption of this legislation is that any mistakes made by an adjudicator can be corrected by reference of the same to litigation or arbitration. It is a major concern that restoration of the parties to their correct positions may become impossible where, after implementation of an adjudicator’s mistaken decision, the beneficiary of the decision becomes insolvent. This article is a critical review of all the cases in which the courts have dealt with the effect of insolvency on the right to adjudicate and the enforceability of adjudicators’ decisions. Two main conclusions are derived from the review. First, the court may decline to enforce an adjudicator’s payment decision where there is strong evidence that, on account of formal insolvency, the payee would be unable to make repayment if final resolution of the dispute necessitates it. Second, the only exception so far to the general right to refer to adjudication arises where the other party is in administration.
Rahman, M M and Kumaraswamy, M M (2005) Assembling integrated project teams for joint risk management. Construction Management and Economics, 23(04), 365-75.
Xenidis, Y and Angelides, D (2005) The financial risks in build-operate-transfer projects. Construction Management and Economics, 23(04), 431-41.