No Cover Image

E-Thesis 418 views 337 downloads

Dispute resolution and access to justice with particular reference to the construction industry in the United Kingdom. / Kerry Samantha Beynon

Swansea University Author: Kerry Samantha Beynon

Abstract

This work examines dispute resolution in the construction industry, namely arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 and adjudication under the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, in the light of The Right Honourable the Lord Woolfs definition of access to justice. 1 Both a theor...

Full description

Published: 2005
Institution: Swansea University
Degree level: Doctoral
Degree name: Ph.D
URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa42315
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2018-08-02T18:54:24Z
last_indexed 2018-08-03T10:09:49Z
id cronfa42315
recordtype RisThesis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2018-08-02T16:24:28.8073937</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>42315</id><entry>2018-08-02</entry><title>Dispute resolution and access to justice with particular reference to the construction industry in the United Kingdom.</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>600a91ffbcec9f6468ebc0d15984f4cf</sid><ORCID>NULL</ORCID><firstname>Kerry Samantha</firstname><surname>Beynon</surname><name>Kerry Samantha Beynon</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>true</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2018-08-02</date><abstract>This work examines dispute resolution in the construction industry, namely arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 and adjudication under the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, in the light of The Right Honourable the Lord Woolfs definition of access to justice. 1 Both a theoretical and an empirical approach have been adopted by this study so as to provide a robust analytical methodology. The theoretical analysis of arbitration and adjudication conducted by this work highlights both the potential successes and failures of the reforms with regard to the promotion of access to justice. Broadly speaking, whilst both statutes were compliant with Woolfs criteria for affording access to justice, three main areas of concern were highlighted, calling into question the compliance of the mechanisms with the civil procedure reforms. These areas of concern were identified as relating to: procedure; cost; and juridification. Turning to consider the procedural concerns, loopholes were uncovered in both Acts that demonstrated a potential avenue for exploitation by disputing parties who were seeking to gain a tactical advantage over their opponent. For example, the speed with which proceedings must be conducted once notice to arbitrate or adjudicate has been given provides parties with the ability to prepare their case in advance and then ambush their opponent with dispute resolution proceedings. In a complex dispute, such ambushing tactics may confer a procedural advantage that may be exploited so as to confer a unilateral benefit. With regard to issues of cost, the financial structure of arbitration and adjudication was seen to raise issues as to the equal access of parties to proceedings. That is, without state aid, can it be said that all parties to a dispute have an equal opportunity to pursue the method of dispute resolution of their choice?</abstract><type>E-Thesis</type><journal/><journalNumber></journalNumber><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher/><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic/><keywords>Law.;Alternative dispute resolution.</keywords><publishedDay>31</publishedDay><publishedMonth>12</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2005</publishedYear><publishedDate>2005-12-31</publishedDate><doi/><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Law</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><degreelevel>Doctoral</degreelevel><degreename>Ph.D</degreename><apcterm/><lastEdited>2018-08-02T16:24:28.8073937</lastEdited><Created>2018-08-02T16:24:28.8073937</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Kerry Samantha</firstname><surname>Beynon</surname><orcid>NULL</orcid><order>1</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>0042315-02082018162444.pdf</filename><originalFilename>10798023.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2018-08-02T16:24:44.7970000</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>35099727</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>E-Thesis</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><embargoDate>2018-08-02T16:24:44.7970000</embargoDate><copyrightCorrect>false</copyrightCorrect></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2018-08-02T16:24:28.8073937 v2 42315 2018-08-02 Dispute resolution and access to justice with particular reference to the construction industry in the United Kingdom. 600a91ffbcec9f6468ebc0d15984f4cf NULL Kerry Samantha Beynon Kerry Samantha Beynon true true 2018-08-02 This work examines dispute resolution in the construction industry, namely arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 and adjudication under the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, in the light of The Right Honourable the Lord Woolfs definition of access to justice. 1 Both a theoretical and an empirical approach have been adopted by this study so as to provide a robust analytical methodology. The theoretical analysis of arbitration and adjudication conducted by this work highlights both the potential successes and failures of the reforms with regard to the promotion of access to justice. Broadly speaking, whilst both statutes were compliant with Woolfs criteria for affording access to justice, three main areas of concern were highlighted, calling into question the compliance of the mechanisms with the civil procedure reforms. These areas of concern were identified as relating to: procedure; cost; and juridification. Turning to consider the procedural concerns, loopholes were uncovered in both Acts that demonstrated a potential avenue for exploitation by disputing parties who were seeking to gain a tactical advantage over their opponent. For example, the speed with which proceedings must be conducted once notice to arbitrate or adjudicate has been given provides parties with the ability to prepare their case in advance and then ambush their opponent with dispute resolution proceedings. In a complex dispute, such ambushing tactics may confer a procedural advantage that may be exploited so as to confer a unilateral benefit. With regard to issues of cost, the financial structure of arbitration and adjudication was seen to raise issues as to the equal access of parties to proceedings. That is, without state aid, can it be said that all parties to a dispute have an equal opportunity to pursue the method of dispute resolution of their choice? E-Thesis Law.;Alternative dispute resolution. 31 12 2005 2005-12-31 COLLEGE NANME Law COLLEGE CODE Swansea University Doctoral Ph.D 2018-08-02T16:24:28.8073937 2018-08-02T16:24:28.8073937 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law Kerry Samantha Beynon NULL 1 0042315-02082018162444.pdf 10798023.pdf 2018-08-02T16:24:44.7970000 Output 35099727 application/pdf E-Thesis true 2018-08-02T16:24:44.7970000 false
title Dispute resolution and access to justice with particular reference to the construction industry in the United Kingdom.
spellingShingle Dispute resolution and access to justice with particular reference to the construction industry in the United Kingdom.
Kerry Samantha Beynon
title_short Dispute resolution and access to justice with particular reference to the construction industry in the United Kingdom.
title_full Dispute resolution and access to justice with particular reference to the construction industry in the United Kingdom.
title_fullStr Dispute resolution and access to justice with particular reference to the construction industry in the United Kingdom.
title_full_unstemmed Dispute resolution and access to justice with particular reference to the construction industry in the United Kingdom.
title_sort Dispute resolution and access to justice with particular reference to the construction industry in the United Kingdom.
author_id_str_mv 600a91ffbcec9f6468ebc0d15984f4cf
author_id_fullname_str_mv 600a91ffbcec9f6468ebc0d15984f4cf_***_Kerry Samantha Beynon
author Kerry Samantha Beynon
author2 Kerry Samantha Beynon
format E-Thesis
publishDate 2005
institution Swansea University
college_str Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description This work examines dispute resolution in the construction industry, namely arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 and adjudication under the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, in the light of The Right Honourable the Lord Woolfs definition of access to justice. 1 Both a theoretical and an empirical approach have been adopted by this study so as to provide a robust analytical methodology. The theoretical analysis of arbitration and adjudication conducted by this work highlights both the potential successes and failures of the reforms with regard to the promotion of access to justice. Broadly speaking, whilst both statutes were compliant with Woolfs criteria for affording access to justice, three main areas of concern were highlighted, calling into question the compliance of the mechanisms with the civil procedure reforms. These areas of concern were identified as relating to: procedure; cost; and juridification. Turning to consider the procedural concerns, loopholes were uncovered in both Acts that demonstrated a potential avenue for exploitation by disputing parties who were seeking to gain a tactical advantage over their opponent. For example, the speed with which proceedings must be conducted once notice to arbitrate or adjudicate has been given provides parties with the ability to prepare their case in advance and then ambush their opponent with dispute resolution proceedings. In a complex dispute, such ambushing tactics may confer a procedural advantage that may be exploited so as to confer a unilateral benefit. With regard to issues of cost, the financial structure of arbitration and adjudication was seen to raise issues as to the equal access of parties to proceedings. That is, without state aid, can it be said that all parties to a dispute have an equal opportunity to pursue the method of dispute resolution of their choice?
published_date 2005-12-31T03:52:43Z
_version_ 1763752609086177280
score 11.031309

Similar Items