It is a feature of any adjudication that a party might consider the adjudicator has made a slip or mistake in writing the decision, which requires correcting to avoid an injustice. Not unreasonable? So what are the injured party’s rights, if any, for the correction to be made?
Articles
Articles in the 2005/March Newsletter
Displaying 5 items“Ah yes, I read that judgment, and thought it was uncontroversial … it was a Court of Appeal decision as well, wasn’t it?” came the reply. Well, well, this CA judgment may not have jingled any bells at Christmas 2004 with Messrs Bingham, Helps & Co., but it jolly well ought to have done.
Lord Justice Jacob’s leading judgment, unreservedly endorsed by Lords Justices Sedley and
A critical analysis of the judicial interpretation of Section 107 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
INTRODUCTION
Apologies to members for the delay in producing the first Newsletter of 2005. We feature three interesting articles in this issue and as always we have Nick Gould’s Case Law Update.
It is a feature of any adjudication that a party might consider the adjudicator has made a slip or mistake in writing the decision, which requires correcting to avoid an injustice. Not unreasonable? So what are the injured party’s rights, if any, for the correction to be made?