首页> 外文期刊>Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management >Statutory adjudication in Western Australia: adjudicators' views
【24h】

Statutory adjudication in Western Australia: adjudicators' views

机译:西澳大利亚州的法定裁决:裁决者的观点

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of the statutory adjudication legislation in Western Australia against its stated aims. Design/methodology/approach - The four objectives of the Western Australia Construction Contracts Act 2004 were identified. For each objective a number of criteria has been devised. In total, 22 registered adjudicators were interviewed, representing 28 per cent of all adjudicators in Western Australia. The interviewees were divided into two groups, one with legal background (being both lawyer and adjudicator), the other without (construction professionals). They were asked to evaluate the criteria against a five-point Likert scale in addition to open ended comments. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to examine whether there were significant differences between the two groups. Annual reports of Building Commissioner, database of the WA State Administrative Tribunal and some law cases were also referred to. Findings - It is found that the West Coast Model is fair to both parties, the adjudications are generally completed speedily according to the prescribed timeframe, and they have been conducted in various levels of formalities. Adjudications are very cost effective for larger claims. However, they are not so for smaller claims. The increasing uptake rate shows that adjudication is getting more popular, while the low appeal rate shows that decisions on dismissal are fair. Research limitations/implications - The adjudicators' opinions are only part of the overall picture and that more research on this topic needs to be done. Originality/value - There have been two distinct legislative models in Australia, commonly known as East Coast Model and West Coast Model. A number of authors have called for a national dual model incorporating both current models. However, it might be too early to discuss the national dual model when there have been very few evaluations on the West Coast Model and among the few there have been problems in the research design. This paper seeks to bridge the gap by evaluating the West Coast Model against its stated aims.
机译:目的-本文的目的是根据其既定目标评估西澳大利亚州法定审判立法的有效性。设计/方法/方法-确定了《 2004年西澳大利亚州建筑合同法》的四个目标。对于每个目标,已经设计了许多标准。总共采访了22名注册仲裁员,占西澳大利亚州所有仲裁员的28%。被访者分为两组,一组具有法律背景(兼有律师和审判员),另一组没有法律背景(建筑专业人士)。除了开放式评论外,他们还被要求按照五点李克特量表对标准进行评估。使用Mann-Whitney U检验来检验两组之间是否存在显着差异。还提到了建筑事务专员的年度报告,西澳大利亚州行政法庭的数据库以及一些法律案件。调查结果-发现西海岸模式对双方均公平,裁决通常会按照规定的时限迅速完成,并且已在各种级别的手续中进行。对于较大的索赔,裁决是非常划算的。但是,对于较小的索赔则不是这样。采纳率的提高表明,裁决越来越受欢迎,而上诉率低表明,解雇的决定是公平的。研究的局限性/含意-评审员的意见仅是整体情况的一部分,并且需要对该主题进行更多的研究。原创性/价值-澳大利亚有两种不同的立法模式,通常称为东海岸模式和西海岸模式。许多作者呼吁建立包含两种当前模型的国家双重模型。但是,当对西海岸模型的评估很少且研究设计中存在问题时,讨论国家对偶模型可能还为时过早。本文旨在通过评估西海岸模型的既定目标来弥合差距。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号