A good example of this can been seen between New South Wales and Queensland, where two different pieces of legislation would set the standards for the process to include: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (for New South Wales) and Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (for Queensland). This proved problematic, because parties could go through the adjudication process and if they lose, they could begin arbitration; effectively avoiding the adjudication penalties. To rectify this situation, New South Wales required that all losers in adjudication must pay all awards to the plaintiff (in a 2002 amendment). Queensland implemented a similar provision in 2007. This helped to increase the overall effectiveness of adjudication being used to settle a variety of disputes, in the construction industry. Besides the obvious differences of regional autonomy, the Australian model differs from the UK model based on the overall days that the arbitrator has to settle awards (which is: 10 days) and all claims must be made within the overall scope of the contract.
The Effects of Adjudication on the Commonwealth
Adjudication is having a major impact upon the way that various disputes within the construction industry are settled. While, the standards are different between the states / territories, the fact of the matter is that the process is evolving to become another way of settling various disputes. The most significant innovations are with the amendments to the adjudication process in New South Wales and Queensland. Where, the requirement that all defendants are required to pay the plaintiff has closed a major loop hole and made the process relevant. As a result, over 2,500 cases were handled in New South Wales between 2002 (when the changes were made) and 2006. This is significant, because it shows how the adjudication process is becoming an effective way for settling disputes outside of the court. However,...
There is also a procedure for appeal that the recipient can follow in the event that the outcome of the hearing is undesirable or inconclusive. Adjudication orders issued without a hearing, except in cases specifically provided, are invalid. The recipient of the order has a right to both a hearing and an appeal. Such an order is furthermore invalid when statutory requirements are not followed in terms of notice to
Criminal Justice Program Evaluation: Oklahoma County Veterans� Treatment CourtA growing body of scholarship confirms that many military veterans, especially combat veterans, experience difficulties in transitioning to civilian life. Although the vast majority of veterans manage to overcome these challenges and go on to lead meaningful and productive lives in their communities, far too many veterans become involved with the criminal justice system for a wide array of reasons, many of
Fourth Amendment states that law enforcement officers need to receive permission from a legal authority in order to be able to look for evidence or seize objects that might contribute to providing information concerning a criminal act. The context of the amendment and the process of incorporation mean that it can only protect individuals when government officials are involved. It does not protect people in a situation concerning private
Juvenile Justice Process: A Case Study The Juvenile Justice Process In this text, I give a detailed description of the process a juvenile offender, Xander L., will follow from his time of arrest to eventual punishment or rehabilitation. In so doing, I will describe the key highlights of the said process including but not limited to intake and sentencing. Further, while taking into consideration the level of offense, I will also draft
E.D. is to "make his mother proud," which demonstrates some pro-social behavior and an interest in solidifying family ties. According to the Washington State Juvenile Pre-Assessment, Xander's social risk factor is moderate. His gang associations lower his score. The combination of criminal and social history warrants a moderate risk factor for this individual. Missouri Juvenile Court Assessment Xander's risk score as computed by the Missouri Juvenile Court Assessment is moderate, at 7. 2. What
Court Systems The structure and platform on which the legal system is based upon is very important in understanding the total landscape of how justice is carried out within the confines of the government. The purpose of this essay is to explore the inner workings of both the federal and state court systems and highlight their similarities and differences. Also, this essay will investigate the roles of court administrators in the
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now